Imaging of oral cavity cancer

Rumboldt, Zoran; Day, Terry A.; Michel, M.

doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.01.010

Cited by 34 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[12][13][14]19 In the preoperative treatment of oral cancer, it has been shown that MRI is better for evaluating soft tissue, bone marrow involvement and perineural invasion, and has been particularly decisive in the diagnosis of small lesions. 7,20,21 The discrepancies found in the comparisons between the staging established by clinical and MRI examinations demonstrate the importance of this study. A clinical staging assessment lower than the real staging could result in ineffective treatment and/ or increase the possibility of recurrence in a particular case, whereas a higher clinical staging assessment could lead to more radical treatment, thereby increasing treatment aftereffects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare clinical staging and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging for oral cancer, and to assess inter-observer agreement between oral and medical radiologists. A total of 10 patients diagnosed with oral cancer were assessed before treatment. A head and neck surgeon performed clinical TNM staging. Two medical radiologists and two oral radiologists performed a new staging assessment by interpreting MRI scans, without prior knowledge of the clinical staging. They evaluated the extent of the primary tumor (T), metastasis to regional lymph nodes (N) and grouping by stages. The data were analyzed using the Kappa Index. There was significant agreement (p < 0.05) between the clinical and MRI staging assessments made by one oral radiologist for N stage, and between those made by one medical radiologist for the T and N stages and for the grouping by stages. In the MRI assessment, there was significant agreement among all four observers for both T stage and grouping by stages. For the N stage, there was no significant agreement between one oral radiologist and one medical radiologist or between both medical radiologists. There was significant agreement among the remaining radiologists. There was no agreement between the clinical and MRI staging. These results indicate the importance of using MRI for the diagnosis of oral cancer. Training initiatives and calibration of medical and oral radiologists should be promoted to provide an improved multidisciplinary approach to oral cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To clarify further the actual benefit from the tumor volume estimation based on the PET/CT scans, we performed a subgroup analysis according to the tumor stage and the depth of tumors, which is one of the most important prognostic indicators for OCCs (1). As a result, in tumors with more than 2 cm in depth the prediction of the pathologic tumor volume was more reliable than in others (R 2 5 0.72), although all subgroups showed a correlation (P , 0.05) between the PET/CT SUV 3.5 volume and the pathologic volume (Table 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The information about the depth and extent of invasion, the presence of mandible involvement, and the status of regional lymph nodes and distant sites depends mainly on the results of the pretreatment imaging studies. In addition to palpation and inspection, the imaging modalities used to evaluate the oral cavity include panoramic radiography, ultrasound, CT, MRI, and PET (1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PET has been particularly helpful in the evaluation of patients with nodal disease and with a clinically unknown primary for directing biopsies of clinically occult primary lesions, determining N stage, differentiating recurrent tumor from posttherapy changes, monitoring or predicting treatment response, and detecting second primary lesions as well as distant metastases (1,(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). The PET/CT scan offers advantages over a PET scan alone, which is limited by poor anatomic localization, and a CT scan alone, which provides morphologic data only.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tumor Volume Assessment by¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Oral Cavity Cancer with Dental Artifacts on CT or MR Images

Baek¹,

Chung²,

Son³

et al. 2008

J Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of PET/CT or CT-attenuated PET in the evaluation of patients with oral cavity cancer (OCC) in whom dental artifacts distorted the conventional CT or MR images of the oral cavity. Methods: A PET/CT scan, in addition to a CT or MRI scan, was performed in 69 patients with OCC who had dentures or dental implants. A total of 64 PET/CT, 64 CT, and 27 MR images were analyzed including images from scans performed on 40 patients with OCC without dental artifacts on the conventional images; these were used for comparison. The CT-attenuated PET scan for the detection of primary tumors was compared with the CT or MRI scan. We also evaluated the correlation between the PET/CT volume and the pathologic volume using a regression analysis. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed to determine what proportion of subjects benefited most from the PET/CT. Results: CT-attenuated PET detected more primary tumors than did CT in patients with OCC with dental artifacts (95.3% vs. 75.0%, respectively; P 5 0.0016). PET/CT volume with a standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoff point of 3.5 predicted the pathologic volume more accurately than did the other cutoff points in patients with OCC with or without artifacts. After comparing pathologic volume and PET/CT SUV 3.5 volume, the following regression equation was developed: log (pathologic volume) 5 0.6 · log (PET/CT SUV 3.5 volume) 1 1.3 (R 2 5 0.42, P , 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that the prediction of the pathologic volume from the PET/CT images was more reliable for tumors that were more than 2 cm in depth (R 2 5 0.72). Conclusion: For patients with OCC with dental artifacts on the conventional imaging, PET/CT could provide useful clinical information about the primary tumors, particularly in cases with advanced tumors.

show abstract

“…12 Owing to its unique anatomy, tumours in the RMT might demonstrate numerous complex routes of spread, which have been described in the literature. 1,6,[13][14][15][16][17] The RMT tumours might be primary or result from regional extension. In this study, nine patients with the RMT involvement via posterior extension of buccal carcinoma were identified (Figure 3b), and the PMR was also involved in these cases because the RMT carcinomas extended submucosally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways involved in the spread of buccal carcinoma on contrast-enhanced multislice CT

D²,

Zhou³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To explore how buccal carcinoma spread, using contrast-enhanced multislice CT (CEMSCT). Methods: We retrospectively analysed the extent of lesions in 56 patients with primary buccal squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA). Abnormal manifestations on CEMSCT at oral subsites and involved adjacent structures were documented and evaluated, which were compared with the results of surgery and histopathology. Results: Infiltration and spread to oral subsites and/or adjacent structures was confirmed in 33 patients (58.9%). The opening of the Stensen duct was the most commonly invaded oral subsite (72.7%); other sites included the gingivobuccal sulcus (60.6%), pterygomandibular raphe (54.5%), gingiva (24.2%), retromolar trigone (24.2%), orbicularis oris (18.2%) and the floor of mouth (15.2%). Of the involved adjacent structures, the buccal space was the most common site of spread (69.7%), followed by the masticatory muscles and spaces (57.6%), bone (54.5%), skin and subcutaneous fat (39.4%), pharynx (30.3%), investing fascia (15.2%) and the base of the skull (6.1%). CEMSCT manifestations of the involvement in buccal SCCAs had correlations with pathological findings (p , 0.05). The sensitivities, specificities and accuracies of two radiologists' evaluation on buccal carcinoma involvement were 50.00%, 23.21% and 73.21%; and 51.79%, 32.14% and 83.93%, respectively.

show abstract

Imaging of oral cavity cancer

Cited by 34 publications

References 26 publications

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

Tumor Volume Assessment by¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Oral Cavity Cancer with Dental Artifacts on CT or MR Images

Pathways involved in the spread of buccal carcinoma on contrast-enhanced multislice CT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Imaging of oral cavity cancer

Cited by 34 publications

References 26 publications

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

Oral cancer staging established by magnetic resonance imaging

Tumor Volume Assessment by18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Oral Cavity Cancer with Dental Artifacts on CT or MR Images

Pathways involved in the spread of buccal carcinoma on contrast-enhanced multislice CT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Tumor Volume Assessment by¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Oral Cavity Cancer with Dental Artifacts on CT or MR Images