| Literature DB >> 34211339 |
F Lalfamkima1, G L Georgeno1, N Koteswara Rao2, Rajkumar Selvakumar3, Vimal Joseph Devadoss1, Niroshini Rajaram4, Shomaila Farid5, T Lalchhuanawma1, Abhishek Singh Nayyar6.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND AIM: The inaccuracies in clinical examination have been well documented, while advanced imaging modalities, including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have been shown to have superior diagnostic accuracy in detecting occult and nodal metastasis. The aim of the present study was to identify as well as evaluate the inaccuracies in clinical examination and of clinical diagnostic criteria in known cases of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) with the help of MRI.Entities:
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; metastasis; multimodal imaging; oral squamous cell carcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34211339 PMCID: PMC8202445 DOI: 10.4103/jcar.JCar_27_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Carcinog ISSN: 1477-3163
Figure 1Magnetic resonance imaging image of a patient (coronal view)
Figure 2Tumor size on magnetic resonance imaging image (axial view)
Figure 3Tumor thickness on magnetic resonance imaging image (coronal view)
Figure 4Lymph node size on magnetic resonance imaging image (coronal view)
Figure 5Lymph node grouping on magnetic resonance imaging image (axial view)
Figure 6Peri-neural spread on magnetic resonance imaging image (axial view)
Figure 7Peri-neural spread on magnetic resonance imaging image (coronal view)
Distribution of cases by age and gender
| Personal characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | |
| Up to 50 | 6 (25.0) |
| 51-65 | 10 (41.7) |
| Above 65 | 8 (33.3) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 15 (62.5) |
| Female | 9 (37.5) |
| Total | 24 (100.0) |
Distribution of cases by site, tumor differentiation and fine-needle aspiration cytology-positive lymph nodes
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Site | |
| Alveolus | 11 (45.8) |
| Tongue | 6 (25.0) |
| Buccal mucosa | 7 (29.2) |
| Total | 24 (100) |
| Tumor differentiation | |
| Poor | 2 (8.3) |
| Moderate | 7 (29.2) |
| Well | 15 (62.5) |
| Total | 24 (100.0) |
| Lymph node status | |
| Positive | 20 (83.33) |
| Negative | 4 (16.67) |
| Total | 24 (100.0) |
Distribution of cases by clinical and imaging staging
| Stage | Clinical, | Imaging, |
|---|---|---|
| T1N1M0 | 1 (4.2) | 2 (8.3) |
| T2N0M0 | 2 (8.3) | 1 (4.2) |
| T2N1M0 | 14 (58.3) | 9 (37.5) |
| T3N1M0 | 7 (29.2) | 9 (37.5) |
| T4N1M0 | - | 3 (12.5) |
| Total | 24 (100.0) | 24 (100.0) |
Relationship between tumor thickness and lymph node metastasis for all levels of lymph nodes
| Levels | Tumor thickness (cm) | Lymph node metastasis | Total, |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | Positive | |||||
| Level I | Up to 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 (33.33) | 7.6830 | 0.0210* |
| 2-3 | 7 | 3 | 10 (30.0) | |||
| >3 | 1 | 8 | 9 (88.89) | |||
| Total | 12 | 13 | 25 (52.0) | |||
| All levels | Up to 2 | 8 | 3 | 11 (27.27) | 8.9260 | 0.0120* |
| 2-3 | 11 | 8 | 19 (42.11) | |||
| >3 | 3 | 13 | 16 (81.25) | |||
| Total | 22 | 24 | 46 (52.17) | |||
*P<0.05: Statistically significant
Diagnostic reliability of different cut-off thickness in relation to lymph node metastasis for all levels of lymph nodes
| Levels | Tumor thickness (cm) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level I | 2 | 66.67 | 15.38 | 42.11 | 33.33 | 40.00 |
| 3 | 41.67 | 23.08 | 33.33 | 30.00 | 32.00 | |
| 4 | 91.67 | 61.54 | 68.75 | 88.89 | 76.00 | |
| All levels | 2 | 63.64 | 12.50 | 40.00 | 27.27 | 36.96 |
| 3 | 50.00 | 33.33 | 40.74 | 42.11 | 41.30 | |
| 4 | 86.36 | 54.17 | 63.33 | 81.25 | 69.57 |
Relationship between lymph node number and metastasis
| Number of lymph nodes enlarged | Lymph node metastasis | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Negative, | Positive, | ||
| 1 | 17 (56.67) | 13 (43.33) | 30 |
| 2 | 4 (36.36) | 7 (63.64) | 11 |
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (100.00) | 1 |
| 4 | 1 (50.00) | 1 (50.00) | 2 |
| 5 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (100.00) | 1 |
| 6 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (100.00) | 1 |
| Total | 22 (47.83) | 24 (52.17) | 46 |
χ2=3.0701, P=0.2152
Diagnostic reliability for lymph node metastasis in relation to lymph node number, grouping and associated changes for all levels of lymph nodes
| Levels | Lymph node | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level I | Number | 75.00 | 38.46 | 52.94 | 62.50 | 56.00 |
| Grouping | 83.33 | 30.77 | 52.63 | 66.67 | 56.00 | |
| Associated changes | 100.00 | 7.69 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 52.00 | |
| All levels | Number | 77.27 | 45.83 | 56.67 | 68.75 | 60.87 |
| Grouping | 81.82 | 37.50 | 54.55 | 69.23 | 58.7 | |
| Associated changes | 100.00 | 4.17 | 48.89 | 100.00 | 50.00 |
Comparison of clinical and imaging staging with varied tumor-related parameters and lymph node size (mm)
| Staging |
| Mean | SD | Mean differences |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor length (mm) | ||||||
| Clinical | 24 | 2.94 | 1.18 | −1.10 | −7.22 | 0.0001* |
| Imaging | 24 | 4.04 | 1.71 | |||
| Tumor width (mm) | ||||||
| Clinical | 24 | 2.47 | 0.97 | −0.61 | −3.38 | 0.0001* |
| Imaging | 24 | 3.08 | 1.53 | |||
| Lymph node size (mm) | ||||||
| Clinical | 20 | 8.00 | 5.48 | −3.45 | 4.21 | 0.0005* |
| Imaging | 20 | 11.45 | 7.22 |
*P<0.05: Statistically significant. SD: Standard deviation
Overall diagnostic reliability of magnetic resonance imaging staging for lymph node metastasis
| Clinical staging | Imaging staging | Cut-off | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Negative | Positive | ||
| Negative | 8 | 3 | 11 |
| Positive | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Total (metastasis) | 8 | 12 | 20 |
| Specificity (%) | 100.00 | ||
| Sensitivity (%) | 75.00 | ||
| Positive predictive value (%) | 72.73 | ||
| Negative predictive value (%) | 100.00 | ||
| Accuracy (%) | 85.00 | ||