Shalva R Gvetadze1,2,3, Ping Xiong4, Mingming Lv1, Jun Li1, Jingzhou Hu1, Konstantin D Ilkaev5, Xin Yang1, Jian Sun1. 1. 1 Department of Oral Maxillofacial-Head Neck Oncology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. 2. 2 Department of Reconstructive Maxillofacial Surgery with Microsurgery and External Prosthetics, Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia. 3. 3 Department of Consulting and Diagnostics, Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia. 4. 4 Department of Ultrasound, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 5. 5 Department of Head and Neck Surgery, NN Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with peritumoral injection of microbubble contrast agent for detecting the sentinel lymph nodes for oral tongue carcinoma. METHODS: The study was carried out on 12 patients with T1-2cN0 oral tongue cancer. A radical resection of the primary disease was planned; a modified radical supraomohyoid neck dissection was reserved for patients with larger lesions (T2, n = 8). The treatment plan and execution were not influenced by sentinel node mapping outcome. The Sonovue™ contrast agent (Bracco Imaging, Milan, Italy) was utilized. After detection, the position and radiologic features of the sentinel nodes were recorded. RESULTS: The identification rate of the sentinel nodes was 91.7%; one patient failed to demonstrate any enhanced areas. A total of 15 sentinel nodes were found in the rest of the 11 cases, with a mean of 1.4 nodes for each patient. The sentinel nodes were localized in: Level IA-1 (6.7%) node; Level IB-11 (73.3%) nodes; Level IIA-3 (20.0%) nodes. No contrast-related adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: For oral tongue tumours, CEUS is a feasible and potentially widely available approach of sentinel node mapping. Further clinical research is required to establish the position of CEUS detection of the sentinel nodes in oral cavity cancers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with peritumoral injection of microbubble contrast agent for detecting the sentinel lymph nodes for oral tongue carcinoma. METHODS: The study was carried out on 12 patients with T1-2cN0 oral tongue cancer. A radical resection of the primary disease was planned; a modified radical supraomohyoid neck dissection was reserved for patients with larger lesions (T2, n = 8). The treatment plan and execution were not influenced by sentinel node mapping outcome. The Sonovue™ contrast agent (Bracco Imaging, Milan, Italy) was utilized. After detection, the position and radiologic features of the sentinel nodes were recorded. RESULTS: The identification rate of the sentinel nodes was 91.7%; one patient failed to demonstrate any enhanced areas. A total of 15 sentinel nodes were found in the rest of the 11 cases, with a mean of 1.4 nodes for each patient. The sentinel nodes were localized in: Level IA-1 (6.7%) node; Level IB-11 (73.3%) nodes; Level IIA-3 (20.0%) nodes. No contrast-related adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: For oral tongue tumours, CEUS is a feasible and potentially widely available approach of sentinel node mapping. Further clinical research is required to establish the position of CEUS detection of the sentinel nodes in oral cavity cancers.
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Diane L Carlson; Dennis H Kraus; Hilda E Stambuk; Mithat Gönen; Yusuf E Erdi; Henry W D Yeung; Andrew G Huvos; Jatin P Shah; Steven M Larson; Richard J Wong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gianpiero Manca; Eleonora Vanzi; Domenico Rubello; Francesco Giammarile; Gaia Grassetto; Ka Kit Wong; Alan C Perkins; Patrick M Colletti; Duccio Volterrani Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ali R Sever; Philippa Mills; Susan E Jones; Karina Cox; Jennifer Weeks; David Fish; Peter A Jones Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L Rubaltelli; V Beltrame; E Scagliori; E Bezzon; A C Frigo; M Rastrelli; R Stramare Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Géke B Flach; E Bloemena; W Martin C Klop; Robert J J van Es; Kees-Pieter Schepman; Otto S Hoekstra; Jonas A Castelijns; C René Leemans; Remco de Bree Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.337