Literature DB >> 9539556

The value of ultrasound with ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy compared to computed tomography in the detection of regional metastases in the clinically negative neck.

R P Takes1, P Righi, C A Meeuwis, J J Manni, P Knegt, H A Marres, H A Spoelstra, M F de Boer, A G van der Mey, I Bruaset, V Ball, E Weisberger, S Radpour, R H Kruyt, F B Joosten, J S Laméris, J A van Oostayen, K Kopecky, K Caldemeyer, S C Henzen-Logmans, J M Wiersma-van Tilburg, F T Bosman, J H van Krieken, J Hermans, R J Baatenburg de Jong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Head and neck oncologists have not reached consensus regarding the role of contemporary imaging techniques in the evaluation of the clinically negative neck in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The purpose of the present study was to compare the accuracy of ultrasound with guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (UGFNAB) and computed tomography (CT) in detecting lymph node metastasis in the clinically negative neck. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four neck sides of patients with HNSCC were examined preoperatively by ultrasound/UGFNAB and CT at one of five participating tertiary care medical centers. The findings were correlated with the results of histopathologic examination of the neck specimen.
RESULTS: Ultrasound with guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy was characterized by a sensitivity of 48%, specificity of 100%, and overall accuracy of 79%. Three cases had nondiagnostic aspirations using UGFNAB and were excluded. CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 54%, specificity of 92%, and overall accuracy of 77%. UGFNAB detected two additional metastases not visualized on CT, whereas CT detected no metastases not seen on UGFNAB. The results of UGFNAB were similar between the participating centers.
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one half of the clinically occult nodal metastases in our patient group were identified by both CT and UGFNAB. Overall, UGFNAB and CT demonstrated comparable accuracy. The sensitivity of CT was slightly better than UGFNAB, but the latter remained characterized by a superior specificity. The results of CT and UGFNAB did not appear to be supplementary. The choice of imaging modality for staging of the clinically negative neck depends on tumor site, T-stage, and experience and preference of the head and neck oncologist. If CT is required for staging of the primary tumor, additional staging of the neck by UGFNAB does not provide significant additional value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9539556     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00953-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  21 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.  Elective neck treatment during salvage (pharyngo) laryngectomy.

Authors:  Simone E Bernard; Marjan H Wieringa; Cees A Meeuwis; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Aniel Sewnaik
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 4.  Prognostic biological features in neck dissection specimens.

Authors:  Julia A Woolgar; Asterios Triantafyllou; James S Lewis; Jennifer Hunt; Michelle D Williams; Robert P Takes; Lester D R Thompson; Pieter J Slootweg; Kenneth O Devaney; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  A systematic review of ultrasound-guided FNA of lesions in the head and neck--focusing on operator, sample inadequacy and presence of on-spot cytology service.

Authors:  A Ganguly; G Burnside; P Nixon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Contemporary management of cancer of the oral cavity.

Authors:  Eric M Genden; Alfio Ferlito; Carl E Silver; Robert P Takes; Carlos Suárez; Randall P Owen; Missak Haigentz; Sandro J Stoeckli; Ashok R Shaha; Alexander D Rapidis; Juan Pablo Rodrigo; Alessandra Rinaldo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-02-13       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Are We Over-treating Neck in Buccal & Alveolo-buccal Cancers: Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Care Center.

Authors:  S V S Deo; N K Shukla; Deepak Jha; Paras Khanna; Archit Pandit; Sanjay Thulkar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-08-11

8.  Staging of untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with PET/CT: comparison with conventional imaging work-up.

Authors:  Shu-Hang Ng; Sheng-Chieh Chan; Tzu-Chen Yen; Joseph Tung-Chieh Chang; Chun-Ta Liao; Sheung-Fat Ko; Feng-Yuan Liu; Shu-Chyn Chin; Kang-Hsing Fan; Cheng-Lung Hsu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Tumor thickness and paralingual distance of coronal MR imaging predicts cervical node metastases in oral tongue carcinoma.

Authors:  M Okura; S Iida; T Aikawa; T Adachi; N Yoshimura; T Yamada; M Kogo
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-10-18       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 10.  Post-therapeutic surveillance schedule for oral cancer: is there agreement?

Authors:  Guicai Liu; Eric J Dierks; R Bryan Bell; Tuan G Bui; Bryce E Potter
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-09-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.