HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Lell, M. M. Articles by Greess, H. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lell, M. M. Articles by Greess, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Thin-Slice MDCT of the Neck: Impact on Cancer Staging

¹ Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Peter V. Ueberroth Bldg., Ste. 3371, 10945 LeConte Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095.
² Department of Radiology, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
³ Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany.
⁴ Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare thin-slice multiplanar evaluation and conventional 3-mm axial evaluation of head and neck MDCT in tumor staging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety-six patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma were evaluated independently, once using 3-mm axial images and once using 1-mm interactive multiplanar reformation (MPR) images. Tumor stage was assessed with both methods; histology served as the reference. Thirty-seven patients with hypopharyngeal and laryngeal tumors had en bloc resection, allowing direct comparison of tumor infiltration into designated anatomic structures. Two examiners independently assessed the data sets. Interobserver agreement was tested with a modified kappa test. The Wilcoxon signed rank test with continuity correction was applied to test the null hypothesis, which postulates the equality of both methods. The chi-square test was applied to compare the number of correctly classified tumors for the two methods and readers.

RESULTS. Interobserver agreement was high ( = 0.88–0.91). Both methods allowed accurate tumor staging, and no significant differences between the two methods were found (reader A, p = 0.61; reader B, p = 1). With MPR assessment, more anatomic structures were rated positive for tumor infiltration, but diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly in the subgroup of patients with histologic correlation from en bloc resection.

CONCLUSION. Conventional 3-mm axial evaluation of head and neck MDCT proved to be sufficient in tumor staging.

Keywords: CT • larynx • MDCT • neoplasm • pharynx

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?