M S Chung1, Y J Choi2, S O Kim3, Y S Lee4, J Y Hong5, J H Lee6, J H Baek6. 1. From the Department of Radiology (M.S.C.), Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Departments of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (Y.J.C., J.H.L., J.H.B.) jehee23@gmail.com. 3. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (S.O.K.). 4. Otolaryngology (Y.S.L.). 5. Oncology (J.Y.H.), Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Departments of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (Y.J.C., J.H.L., J.H.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An accurate and comprehensive assessment of lymph node metastasis in patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer is crucial in daily practice. This study constructed a predictive model with a risk scoring system based on CT characteristics of lymph nodes and tumors for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data included 476 cervical lymph nodes from 191 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma from a historical cohort. We analyzed preoperative CT images of lymph nodes, including diameter, ratio of long-to-short axis diameter, necrosis, conglomeration, infiltration to adjacent soft tissue, laterality and T-stage of the primary tumor. The reference standard comprised pathologic results. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to develop the risk scoring system. Internal validation was performed with 1000-iteration bootstrapping. RESULTS: Shortest axial diameter, ratio of long-to-short axis diameter, necrosis, and T-stage were used to develop a 9-point risk scoring system. The risk of malignancy ranged from 7.3% to 99.8%, which was positively associated with increased scores. Areas under the curve of the risk scoring systems were 0.886 (95% CI, 0.881-0.920) and 0.879 (95% CI, 0.845-0.914) in internal validation. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test indicated that the risk scoring system was well-calibrated (P = .160). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive and simple risk scoring system using CT characteristics in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis. It could facilitate decision-making in daily practice.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An accurate and comprehensive assessment of lymph node metastasis in patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer is crucial in daily practice. This study constructed a predictive model with a risk scoring system based on CT characteristics of lymph nodes and tumors for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data included 476 cervical lymph nodes from 191 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma from a historical cohort. We analyzed preoperative CT images of lymph nodes, including diameter, ratio of long-to-short axis diameter, necrosis, conglomeration, infiltration to adjacent soft tissue, laterality and T-stage of the primary tumor. The reference standard comprised pathologic results. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to develop the risk scoring system. Internal validation was performed with 1000-iteration bootstrapping. RESULTS: Shortest axial diameter, ratio of long-to-short axis diameter, necrosis, and T-stage were used to develop a 9-point risk scoring system. The risk of malignancy ranged from 7.3% to 99.8%, which was positively associated with increased scores. Areas under the curve of the risk scoring systems were 0.886 (95% CI, 0.881-0.920) and 0.879 (95% CI, 0.845-0.914) in internal validation. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test indicated that the risk scoring system was well-calibrated (P = .160). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive and simple risk scoring system using CT characteristics in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis. It could facilitate decision-making in daily practice.
Authors: E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M W van den Brekel; H V Stel; J A Castelijns; J J Nauta; I van der Waal; J Valk; C J Meyer; G B Snow Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ann D King; Kwok-Keung Chow; Kwok-Hung Yu; Frankie Kwok Fai Mo; David K W Yeung; Jing Yuan; Kunwar S Bhatia; Alexander C Vlantis; Anil T Ahuja Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jong Ju Jeong; Yong Sang Lee; Seung Chul Lee; Sang-Wook Kang; Woong Youn Chung; Hang-Seok Chang; Won Youl Seo; Ki Jun Song; Cheong Soo Park Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Reza Assadsangabi; Rosa Babaei; Catherine Songco; Vladimir Ivanovic; Matthew Bobinski; Yin J Chen; Seyed Ali Nabavizadeh Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Lennert Eismann; Severin Rodler; Alexander Tamalunas; Gerald Schulz; Friedrich Jokisch; Yannic Volz; Paulo Pfitzinger; Boris Schlenker; Christian Stief; Olga Solyanik; Alexander Buchner; Tobias Grimm Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.541