| Literature DB >> 32357419 |
Marco Benazzo1, Fabio Sovardi1, Lorenzo Preda2, Simone Mauramati1, Sergio Carnevale3, Giulia Bertino1, Francesca Berton2, Matteo Meroni1, Irene Herman1, Giuseppe Trisolini1, Patrizia Morbini4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative imaging impacts treatment planning and prognosis in laryngeal cancers. We investigated the accuracy of standard computed tomography (CT) in evaluating tumor invasions at critical glottic areas.Entities:
Keywords: TNM staging; glottic map; imaging accuracy; laryngeal cancers; standard CT
Year: 2020 PMID: 32357419 PMCID: PMC7281313 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12051074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Radiological and histopathological assessments of tumor extensions.
|
|
|
|
|
| cT2 | 4 (6.3%) | pT2 | 19 (29.7%) |
| cT3 | 39 (60.9%) | pT3 | 28 (43.8%) |
| cT4a | 21 (25.0%) | pT4a | 16 (25.0%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| cII | 4 (6.3%) | pII | 18 (27.7%) |
| cIII | 37 (57.8%) | pIII | 25 (38.5%) |
| cIVA | 23 (35.9%) | pIVA | 1 (1.5%) |
| cIVB | 0 (0.0%) | pIVB | 4 (6.2%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 43 (62.3%) |
| 50 (78.1%) |
| A | 15 (21.7%) | A | 21 (32.8%) |
| B | 13 (18.8%) | B | 13 (20.3%) |
| C | 15 (21.7%) | C | 16 (25.0%) |
|
| 63 (91.3%) |
| 63 (98.4%) |
| A | 6 (8.7%) | A | 20 (31.3%) |
| B | 49 (71.0%) | B | 32 (50.0%) |
| C | 8 (11.6%) | C | 11 (17.2%) |
|
| 32 (46.4%) |
| 34 (53.1%) |
| A | 3 (4.4%) | A | 6 (9.4%) |
| B | 16 (23.2%) | B | 22 (34.4%) |
| C | 13 (18.8%) | C | 6 (5.1%) |
AC: anterior commissure, AVF: anterior vocal fold, PVF: posterior vocal fold, AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer, rMAP: radiological glottic map and pMAP: histopathological glottic map.
Figure 1Compared distribution of cT with pT and cTNM with pTNM stages (AJCC 2017). (A) Comparison of cT and pT distribution. (B) Comparison of cTNM and pTNM stage distribution.
Figure 2Accuracy in the radiological assessment of anterior commissure (AC) involvement. (A) Graphical representation of concordance between CT and histopathology in anterior commissure assessment. (B) Percentage of cancer involvement of anterior commissure in rMAP and pMAP. (C) Sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (Acc) of CT in anterior commissure. CI: confidence interval, rMAP: radiological glottic map and pMAP: histopathological glottic map.
Figure 3Accuracy in radiological assessment of anterior vocal fold (AVF) involvement. (A) Graphical representation of concordance between CT and histopathology in anterior vocal fold assessment. (B) Percentage of cancer involvement of anterior vocal fold in rMAP and pMAP. (C) Sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (Acc) of CT in anterior vocal fold. CI: confidence interval, rMAP: radiological glottic map and pMAP: histopathological glottic map.
Figure 4Accuracy in radiological assessment of posterior vocal fold (PVF) involvement. (A) Graphical representation of concordance between CT and histopathology in posterior vocal fold assessment. (B) Percentage of cancer involvement of posterior vocal fold in rMAP and pMAP. (C) Sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (Acc) of CT in posterior vocal fold. CI: confidence interval, rMAP: radiological glottic map and pMAP: histopathological glottic map.
Figure 5Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival analysis (DSS). (A) Comparison of DFS between the histopathological assessment of spared or involved pPGS. (B) Comparison of DFS between the radiological assessment of spared or involved pPGS. (C) Comparison of DSS between the histopathological assessment of spared or involved pPGS. (D) Comparison of DSS between the radiological assessment of spared or involved pPGS. pPGS: posterior paraglottic space, SE: standard error and CI: confidence interval.
Figure 6Glottic map: subsites and layers of depth. AC: anterior commissure, AVF: anterior vocal fold and PVF: posterior vocal fold.