Byung C Yoon1, Karen Buch1, Mary E Cunnane2, Peter M Sadow3, Mark A Varvares4, Amy F Juliano5. 1. Departments of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. 2. Departments of Radiology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. 3. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. 4. Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. 5. Departments of Radiology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. Electronic address: Amy_Juliano@meei.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) tumor thickness (TT) measured on CT to intraoperative ultrasound (US) and histopathology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-six patients with OTSCC who underwent tumor resection by a single surgeon with simultaneous intraoperative US between 3/2016 and 4/2019 were prospectively identified, and their data reviewed. TT was independently measured in 19 patients who underwent preoperative CT (cTT) by two neuroradiologists blinded to US and histological results. The confidence level of interpretation of cTT was recorded by each reader using a 5-point Likert scale. The degree of dental artifact on CT was also scored. cTT was compared to TT measured on intraoperative US (uTT) and histopathologic assessment of TT (hTT). RESULTS: OTSCC was visualized on CT in 52% (10/19) and 63% (12/19) of cases for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Mean Likert score was 0.42 for reader 1 and 0.73 for reader 2. Mean cTT of OTSCCs was 5.8 mm +/- 1.7 mm (n = 11). In comparison, mean uTT and hTT were 7.6 mm±3.5 mm and 7.1 +/- 4.2 mm, respectively. The Pearson coefficient (95% confidence interval) was 0.10 (-0.53-0.66) between cTT and hTT (n = 11) and 0.93 (0.74-0.98) between uTT and hTT. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT is not reliable for assessment of TT in OTSCC compared to US and histopathology, particularly for OTSCC under 10 mm. US offers a practical complementary imaging tool with a unique role for primary tumor assessment that can aid in pre-operative planning, especially for small tumors.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) tumor thickness (TT) measured on CT to intraoperative ultrasound (US) and histopathology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-six patients with OTSCC who underwent tumor resection by a single surgeon with simultaneous intraoperative US between 3/2016 and 4/2019 were prospectively identified, and their data reviewed. TT was independently measured in 19 patients who underwent preoperative CT (cTT) by two neuroradiologists blinded to US and histological results. The confidence level of interpretation of cTT was recorded by each reader using a 5-point Likert scale. The degree of dental artifact on CT was also scored. cTT was compared to TT measured on intraoperative US (uTT) and histopathologic assessment of TT (hTT). RESULTS: OTSCC was visualized on CT in 52% (10/19) and 63% (12/19) of cases for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Mean Likert score was 0.42 for reader 1 and 0.73 for reader 2. Mean cTT of OTSCCs was 5.8 mm +/- 1.7 mm (n = 11). In comparison, mean uTT and hTT were 7.6 mm±3.5 mm and 7.1 +/- 4.2 mm, respectively. The Pearson coefficient (95% confidence interval) was 0.10 (-0.53-0.66) between cTT and hTT (n = 11) and 0.93 (0.74-0.98) between uTT and hTT. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT is not reliable for assessment of TT in OTSCC compared to US and histopathology, particularly for OTSCC under 10 mm. US offers a practical complementary imaging tool with a unique role for primary tumor assessment that can aid in pre-operative planning, especially for small tumors.
Authors: B C Yoon; M D Bulbul; P M Sadow; W C Faquin; H D Curtin; M A Varvares; A F Juliano Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: William M Lydiatt; Snehal G Patel; Brian O'Sullivan; Margaret S Brandwein; John A Ridge; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Ashley M Loomis; Jatin P Shah Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Osama Tarabichi; Vivek Kanumuri; Amy F Juliano; William C Faquin; Mary E Cunnane; Mark A Varvares Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: A Yesuratnam; D Wiesenfeld; A Tsui; T A Iseli; S V Hoorn; M T Ang; A Guiney; P M Phal Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Rob Noorlag; Thomas J W Klein Nulent; Valerie E J Delwel; Frank A Pameijer; Stefan M Willems; Remco de Bree; Robert J J van Es Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: E A M Weimar; S H Huang; L Lu; B O'Sullivan; B Perez-Ordonez; I Weinreb; A Hope; L Tong; D Goldstein; J Irish; J R de Almeida; S Bratman; W Xu; E Yu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ian Ganly; David Goldstein; Diane L Carlson; Snehal G Patel; Brian O'Sullivan; Nancy Lee; Patrick Gullane; Jatin P Shah Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 6.860