Literature DB >> 8361287

Nodal size of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the neck.

M Friedman1, N Roberts, G L Kirshenbaum, J Colombo.   

Abstract

The preoperative use of computed tomographic (CT) scanning continues to be the best diagnostic method for preoperative detection of metastatic neck disease. Current accepted criteria for CT diagnosis of nodal disease are not uniform, although nodal size, nodal grouping, and central necrosis correlate strongly with malignancy. To assess the relationship of nodal size and malignancy, a multicenter study was designed to evaluate the nodes from 100 neck dissections. Sixty-nine positive neck dissections were analyzed, and every node was measured. The relationship of central necrosis was also compared with node size. Our results showed that CT scanning continues to provide a reliable picture of the histologic status of lymph nodes. Using the criterion of central necrosis or node size larger than 1 cm, only 7% of necks had nodal disease that would have been missed by CT interpretation. This study supports the continued use of preoperative CT evaluation for metastatic neck disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8361287     DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199308000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  9 in total

1.  Combination of helical CT and Doppler sonography in the follow-up of patients with clinical N0 stage neck disease and oral cancer.

Authors:  Sato Eida; Misa Sumi; Koichi Yonetsu; Yasuo Kimura; Takashi Nakamura
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  Nodal imaging in the neck: recent advances in US, CT and MR imaging of metastatic nodes.

Authors:  Takashi Nakamura; Misa Sumi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Comparison of the efficacy of clinical examination, ultrasound neck and computed tomography in detection and staging of cervical lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancers.

Authors:  Nitin Anand; Neena Chaudhary; M K Mittal; Rajni Prasad
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2007-04-26

4.  Diagnostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative evaluation of patients with laryngeal tumors.

Authors:  Bojan Banko; Vojko Dukić; Jovica Milovanović; Jelena Dokić Kovač; Vera Artiko; Ružica Maksimović
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Evaluation of histomorphological and immunohistochemical parameters as biomarkers of cervical lymph node metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of oral cavity: A retrospective study.

Authors:  T N Suresh; A Hemalatha; M L Harendra Kumar; S M Azeem Mohiyuddin
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Pathol       Date:  2015 Jan-Apr

Review 6.  Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cervical lymph node metastasis of head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Sun; B Li; C J Li; Y Li; F Su; Q H Gao; F L Wu; T Yu; L Wu; L J Li
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study on Imaging Patterns at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Authors:  Amal Saleh Nour; Tequam Debebe Weldehawariat; Aynalem Abraha Woldemariam; Dheresa Gelana Layo
Journal:  Ethiop J Health Sci       Date:  2020-03

8.  Clinical diagnostic criteria versus advanced imaging in prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinomas: A magnetic resonance imaging based study.

Authors:  F Lalfamkima; G L Georgeno; N Koteswara Rao; Rajkumar Selvakumar; Vimal Joseph Devadoss; Niroshini Rajaram; Shomaila Farid; T Lalchhuanawma; Abhishek Singh Nayyar
Journal:  J Carcinog       Date:  2021-04-13

Review 9.  The role of ultrasound in the detection of cervical lymph node metastases in clinically N0 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Authors:  P S Richards; T E Peacock
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-11-19       Impact factor: 3.909

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.