PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT in assessing mandibular invasion by lower gingival carcinoma and compare it with that of panoramic radiography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lower gingiva who were examined by both panoramic radiography and cone-beam CT before surgery were included in this study. Five radiologists used a 6-point rating scale to independently evaluate cone-beam CT and panoramic images for the presence or absence of alveolar bone and mandibular canal involvement by tumor. Using the histopathogical findings as the gold standard, we calculated and compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az value) and the sensitivity and specificity of the two imaging modalities. RESULTS: In evaluations of both alveolar bone and mandibular canal involvement, the mean Az value for cone-beam CT (0.918 and 0.977, respectively) was significantly higher than that for panoramic radiography (0.793 and 0.872, respectively). The mean sensitivity for cone-beam CT (89% and 99%, respectively) was significantly higher than that for panoramic radiography (73% and 56%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the mean specificity. While cone-beam CT could provide high-resolution three-dimensional images, the image quality around the alveolar crest was often hampered by severe dental artifacts and image noise, resulting in difficulties in detecting subtle alveolar invasion. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam CT was significantly superior to panoramic radiography in evaluating mandibular invasion by lower gingival carcinoma. Its diagnostic value in detecting subtle alveolar invasion, however, may be limited by severe dental artifacts and image noise.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT in assessing mandibular invasion by lower gingival carcinoma and compare it with that of panoramic radiography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lower gingiva who were examined by both panoramic radiography and cone-beam CT before surgery were included in this study. Five radiologists used a 6-point rating scale to independently evaluate cone-beam CT and panoramic images for the presence or absence of alveolar bone and mandibular canal involvement by tumor. Using the histopathogical findings as the gold standard, we calculated and compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az value) and the sensitivity and specificity of the two imaging modalities. RESULTS: In evaluations of both alveolar bone and mandibular canal involvement, the mean Az value for cone-beam CT (0.918 and 0.977, respectively) was significantly higher than that for panoramic radiography (0.793 and 0.872, respectively). The mean sensitivity for cone-beam CT (89% and 99%, respectively) was significantly higher than that for panoramic radiography (73% and 56%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the mean specificity. While cone-beam CT could provide high-resolution three-dimensional images, the image quality around the alveolar crest was often hampered by severe dental artifacts and image noise, resulting in difficulties in detecting subtle alveolar invasion. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam CT was significantly superior to panoramic radiography in evaluating mandibular invasion by lower gingival carcinoma. Its diagnostic value in detecting subtle alveolar invasion, however, may be limited by severe dental artifacts and image noise.
Authors: Thomas Mücke; Frank Hölzle; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Marco Kesting Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: A Kolk; T Schuster; A Chlebowski; P Lange; K Scheidhauer; M Kesting; O Bissinger; M Schwaiger; J Dinges; J Weitz Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: G Tirelli; S Zacchigna; F Boscolo Nata; E Quatela; R Di Lenarda; M Piovesana Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 2.503