Literature DB >> 18830710

Preoperative cervical lymph node size evaluation in patients with malignant head/neck tumors: comparison between ultrasound and computer tomography.

Bettina Hohlweg-Majert1, Marc C Metzger, Pit J Voss, Frank Hölzle, Klaus-Dietrich Wolff, Dirk Schulze.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The spread of malignant lymph nodes due to malignancies of the head and neck is systematically observed. However, sentinel lymph nodes in the cervical region, such as in the axillary or supraclavicular regions, are not described. Therefore, precise preoperative lymph node screening of all neck compartments is required.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with a primary malignant tumor in the head and neck area underwent lymph node staging of the head by means of both CT and ultrasound as a preoperative evaluation. The lymph nodes were classified on the origin of the level system proposed by Som et al. (174:837-844, 2000), which is based on the recommendation of the American College of Radiology introduced in 1990. According to the manual measurement of World Health Organization and the Revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the longest transversal and longitudinal diameters were measured by ultrasound, while only the two longest transversal diameters were recorded by CT. The study was conducted by two independent observers. These results were compared with the histopathological results as references.
RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-four lymph nodes were detected, 64 of which were malignant. Most of the transformed lymph nodes were found in level IIa, II b and III. A more precise measurement was given using ultrasound. The correct positive rate of sonographically detected malignant lymph nodes was significantly higher compared to the CT reading.
CONCLUSION: Cervical lymph node staging can be performed safely by ultrasound. It is a cheap, easy-to-handle and cost-effective diagnostic method. However, only the uppermost regions of the neck are accessible with a linear transducer. Despite this restriction, ultrasound is a reliable and valuable tool for screening lymph nodes in the case of a head or neck malignancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18830710     DOI: 10.1007/s00432-008-0487-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0171-5216            Impact factor:   4.553


  40 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Neck dissection classification update: revisions proposed by the American Head and Neck Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Authors:  K Thomas Robbins; Garry Clayman; Paul A Levine; Jesus Medina; Roy Sessions; Ashok Shaha; Peter Som; Gregory T Wolf
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2002-07

3.  Multivariate feature analysis of sonographic findings of metastatic cervical lymph nodes: contribution of blood flow features revealed by power Doppler sonography for predicting metastasis.

Authors:  T Chikui; K Yonetsu; T Nakamura
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Very high frequency (13 MHz) ultrasonographic examination of the normal neck: detection of normal lymph nodes and thyroid nodules.

Authors:  J N Bruneton; C Balu-Maestro; P Y Marcy; P Melia; M Y Mourou
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Cervical metastases in upper aerodigestive tract squamous cell carcinoma: histopathologic analysis and reporting.

Authors:  Jemy Jose; Andrew P Coatesworth; Ken MacLennan
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.147

6.  Computed tomography and ultrasonographic evaluation of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with surgicoclinicopathologic correlation.

Authors:  K Sarvanan; J Rajiv Bapuraj; Suresh C Sharma; B D Radotra; N Khandelwal; S Suri
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.469

7.  Preserving level IIb lymph nodes in elective supraomohyoid neck dissection for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Young Chang Lim; Mee Hyun Song; Sang Cheol Kim; Kwang Moon Kim; Eun Chang Choi
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-09

8.  Differentiation of benign from malignant superficial lymphadenopathy: the role of high-resolution US.

Authors:  P Vassallo; K Wernecke; N Roos; P E Peters
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Assessment of cervical lymph node metastases using FDG-PET in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Yutaka Yamazaki; Masaaki Saitoh; Ken-ichi Notani; Kanchu Tei; Yasunori Totsuka; Shu-ichi Takinami; Kakuko Kanegae; Masayuki Inubushi; Nagara Tamaki; Yoshimasa Kitagawa
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2008-05-23       Impact factor: 2.668

10.  Evaluation of cervical lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Authors:  D M Don; Y Anzai; R B Lufkin; Y S Fu; T C Calcaterra
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  8 in total

1.  Quantitative evaluation of vascularity within cervical lymph nodes using Doppler ultrasound in patients with oral cancer: relation to lymph node size.

Authors:  T Kagawa; K Yuasa; F Fukunari; T Shiraishi; K Miwa
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  [Use of a portable ultrasound system in the perisurgical assessment of head and neck patients].

Authors:  F Angerer; J Zenk; H Iro; A Bozzato
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Is the prediction of one or two ipsilateral positive lymph nodes by computerized tomography and ultrasound reliable enough to restrict therapeutic neck dissection in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients?

Authors:  Karl Christoph Sproll; Sabina Leydag; Henrik Holtmann; Lara K Schorn; Joel Aissa; Patric Kröpil; Wolfgang Kaisers; Csaba Tóth; Jörg Handschel; Julian Lommen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  Clinical utility and prospective comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography imaging in staging of neck metastases in head and neck squamous cell cancer in an Indian setup.

Authors:  Mohammad Ashraf; Jaydip Biswas; Jayesh Jha; Sandeep Nayak; Vikas Singh; Suparna Majumdar; Anup Bhowmick; Aniruddha Dam
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Evaluation of sentinel lymph node size and shape as a predictor of occult metastasis in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity.

Authors:  Linnea Langhans; Anders Bilde; Birgitte Charabi; Marianne Hamilton Therkildsen; Christian von Buchwald
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Contribution of Ultrasonography to the Diagnosis of Submucosal and Subcutaneous Nodular Lesions of the Oral and Maxillofacial Region: Analysis of Cases.

Authors:  Felipe Leal Martins; Fernanda Gonçalves Salum; Karen Cherubini; Roberto Oliveira; Maria Antonia Zancanaro de Figueiredo
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2014-10-21

7.  Screening recurrence and lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer: the role of computer tomography in follow-up.

Authors:  Valentina Rivelli; Heinz T Luebbers; Franz E Weber; Claudia Cordella; Klaus W Grätz; Astrid L Kruse
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2011-03-25

Review 8.  Review of ultrasonography of malignant neck nodes: greyscale, Doppler, contrast enhancement and elastography.

Authors:  M Ying; K S S Bhatia; Y P Lee; H Y Yuen; A T Ahuja
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 3.909

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.