PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(02): e179-e184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402435
Original Research

Comparison of Clinical Examination and Various Imaging Modalities in the Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancer

Uwe Schneider 
1   Department of Radiology, Klinikum Gütersloh, Gütersloh, Germany
,
Inse Graß
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, St. Joseph-Stift, Bremen, Germany
,
Martin Laudien
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
,
Joachim Quetz
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
,
Hendrik Graefe
4   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Asklepios Clinic St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany
,
Barbara Wollenberg
5   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
,
Jens Eduard Meyer
4   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Asklepios Clinic St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Squamous cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (HNSCC) is the most common tumor entity of malignant processes in the head and neck area. Due to the metastasizing behavior of these tumors, the staging is indispensable for the treatment planning and requires imaging techniques, which are sensitive, specific, and as far as possible cost-effective, to benefit ultimately the patient and to ensure optimal care.

Objectives The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical examination including palpation, ultrasound and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of neck metastases to make the correct indication for a neck dissection.

Methods Data from 286 patients with HNSCC were analyzed for neck metastases to determine which diagnostic tool is the best to answer the question if a neck dissection is necessary or not. Each study method was examined retrospectively by comparing sensitivity, specificity, the positive/negative predictive value, the positive likelihood ratio and the diagnostic accuracy.

Results The ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 91.52%, a specificity of 61.67%, a positive/negative predictive value of 76.65%/84.09%, a positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 and a diagnostic accuracy of 78.95%. The clinical examination showed a sensitivity of 75.76%, a specificity of 66.12%, a positive/negative predictive value of 75.30%/66.67%, a positive likelihood ratio of 2.24 and a diagnostic accuracy of 71.68%. The CT/MRI showed a sensitivity of 78.66%, a specificity of 62.50%, a positive/negative predictive value of 74.14%/68.18%, a positive likelihood ratio of 2.10 and a diagnostic accuracy of 71.83%. Radiographically, ultrasound, as well as the clinical examination, could be judged to be free from radiation load and side effects from the contrast medium. The high dependence on the investigator when using ultrasound made reproducibility of the results difficult.

Conclusions It could be shown that ultrasound was the diagnostic tool with the highest sensitivity, positive/negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio and diagnostic accuracy by detecting and interpreting metastases in the head and neck region correctly. Whether a neck dissection should be performed depends to a large extent on the ultrasound findings.

Keywords

cancer of head and neck - ultrasound imaging - X-ray computed tomography - MR tomography - neck dissections


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. August 2018

Angenommen: 20. Oktober 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. Mai 2020

© 2020. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Ohmura G, Tsujikawa T, Yaguchi T. et al. Aberrant Myosin 1b Expression Promotes Cell Migration and Lymph Node Metastasis of HNSCC. Mol Cancer Res 2015; 13 (04) 721-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shetty D, Jayade BV, Joshi SK, Gopalkrishnan K. Accuracy of palpation, ultrasonography, and computed tomography in the evaluation of metastatic cervical lymph nodes in head and neck cancer. Indian J Dent 2015; 6 (03) 121-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sun J, Li B, Li CJ. et al. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cervical lymph node metastasis of head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. OncoTargets Ther 2015; 8: 1291-1313
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hör G. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25 (09) 1255-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Giancarlo T, Palmieri A, Giacomarra V, Russolo M. Pre-operative evaluation of cervical adenopathies in tumours of the upper aerodigestive tract. Anticancer Res 1998; 18 (4B): 2805-2809
    Google Scholar
  • 6 van Veen SA, Balm AJ, Valdés Olmos RA. et al. Occult primary tumors of the head and neck: accuracy of thallium 201 single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 127 (04) 406-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Haberal I, Celik H, Göçmen H, Akmansu H, Yörük M, Ozeri C. Which is important in the evaluation of metastatic lymph nodes in head and neck cancer: palpation, ultrasonography, or computed tomography?. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (02) 197-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 King AD, Tse GM, Ahuja AT. et al. Necrosis in metastatic neck nodes: diagnostic accuracy of CT, MR imaging, and US. Radiology 2004; 230 (03) 720-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Akoğlu E, Dutipek M, Bekiş R, Değirmenci B, Ada E, Güneri A. Assessment of cervical lymph node metastasis with different imaging methods in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Otolaryngol 2005; 34 (06) 384-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leicher-Düber A, Bleier R, Düber C. et al. Halslymphknotenmetastasen: Histologisch kontrollierter Vergleich von Palpation, Sonographie und Computertomographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2008; 153 (11) 575-579
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Danninger R, Posawetz W, Humer U, Stammberger H, Jakse R. Ultraschalluntersuchung zervikaler Lymphknotenmetastasen: Konzept und Ergebnis einer histopathologischen Aufarbeitung. Laryngorhinootologie 1999; 78 (03) 144-149
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Steinkamp HJ, Knöbber D, Schedel H, Mäurer J, Felix R. Palpation und Sonographie in der Nachsorge von Kopf-Hals-Tumorpatienten: Vergleich sonographischer Dignitätsparameter. Laryngorhinootologie 1993; 72 (09) 431-438
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Liao LJ, Lo WC, Hsu WL, Wang CT, Lai MS. Detection of cervical lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer patients with clinically N0 neck-a meta-analysis comparing different imaging modalities. BMC Cancer 2012; 12: 236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Park HS, Chung EJ, Park MW. et al. Usefulness of radiologic examinations for diagnosing level VI lymph node metastasis in patients with laryngohypopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (11) 3959-3964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sohn B, Koh YW, Kang WJ, Lee JH, Shin NY, Kim J. Is there an additive value of 18 F-FDG PET-CT to CT/MRI for detecting nodal metastasis in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients with palpably negative neck?. Acta Radiol 2016; 57 (11) 1352-1359
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Machado MR, Tavares MR, Buchpiguel CA, Chammas MC. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Cervical Lymph Nodes in Thyroid Cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (02) 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Stojanov D, Aracki-Trenkic A, Benedeto-Stojanov D. Gadolinium deposition within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents-current status. Neuroradiology 2016; 58 (05) 433-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K. et al. Macrocyclic and Other Non-Group 1 Gadolinium Contrast Agents Deposit Low Levels of Gadolinium in Brain and Bone Tissue: Preliminary Results From 9 Patients With Normal Renal Function. Invest Radiol 2016; 51 (07) 447-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Malayeri AA, Brooks KM, Bryant LH. et al. National Institutes of Health Perspective on Reports of Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (03) 237-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar