PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the accuracy of CT and MRI in staging of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity and oropharynx. METHOD: Fifty-one episodes of primary and recurrent SCC were assessed with CT and MRI. The results were compared with pathological staging. RESULTS: For staging primary tumours, the accuracy of MR was 77% and that of CT was 67%. For detecting recurrent tumour, the accuracy of MR was 89% and that of CT was 100%. For N-staging, nodal sites were divided, according to the site of the primary tumour, into high and low risk. Sensitivity for high risk sites was 60% for clinical assessment, 35% for CT, and 75% for MR. Negative predictive value (NPV) was < or = 50% for all methods. For low risk sites, the NPV was > or = 95% for all methods. CONCLUSION: For T-staging, MR scanning is overall more accurate than CT. If degraded images and T1 tumours are excluded, the techniques are comparable. MR scanning is oversensitive for recurrent disease. For N-staging, all methods failed to detect small metastatic deposits.
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the accuracy of CT and MRI in staging of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity and oropharynx. METHOD: Fifty-one episodes of primary and recurrent SCC were assessed with CT and MRI. The results were compared with pathological staging. RESULTS: For staging primary tumours, the accuracy of MR was 77% and that of CT was 67%. For detecting recurrent tumour, the accuracy of MR was 89% and that of CT was 100%. For N-staging, nodal sites were divided, according to the site of the primary tumour, into high and low risk. Sensitivity for high risk sites was 60% for clinical assessment, 35% for CT, and 75% for MR. Negative predictive value (NPV) was < or = 50% for all methods. For low risk sites, the NPV was > or = 95% for all methods. CONCLUSION: For T-staging, MR scanning is overall more accurate than CT. If degraded images and T1 tumours are excluded, the techniques are comparable. MR scanning is oversensitive for recurrent disease. For N-staging, all methods failed to detect small metastatic deposits.
Authors: Fabian K Lohöfer; Georgios A Kaissis; Frances L Köster; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Ingo Einspieler; Carlos Gerngross; Michael Rasper; Peter B Noel; Steffen Koerdt; Andreas Fichter; Ernst J Rummeny; Rickmer F Braren Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Eric M Genden; Alfio Ferlito; Carl E Silver; Robert P Takes; Carlos Suárez; Randall P Owen; Missak Haigentz; Sandro J Stoeckli; Ashok R Shaha; Alexander D Rapidis; Juan Pablo Rodrigo; Alessandra Rinaldo Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Andrew R Gordon; Laurie A Loevner; Amita Shukla-Dave; Regina O Redfern; Adina I Sonners; Alex M Kilger; Mark A Elliott; Mitchell Machtay; Randal S Weber; Jerry D Glickson; David I Rosenthal Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Benedikt Michael Schaarschmidt; Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Marcus Ruhlmann; Christoph Bergmann; Verena Ruhlmann; Marc Schlamann; Gerald Antoch; Michael Forsting; Axel Wetter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 9.236