Oral oncology · 2026
Diagnostic value of MRI-based iENE assessment for predicting major and minor extranodal extension in oral tongue carcinoma.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chakrabarty Nivedita, Dadlani Tapish, Mahajan Abhishek, Laskar Sarbani Ghosh, Nair Deepa, Menon Munita, Rane Swapnil, Rane Pallavi, Deshmukh Anuja, Pantvaidya Gouri, Singh Arjun, Sahu Arpita, Patil Asawari, Noronha Vanita, Prabhash Kumar, Chaturvedi Pankaj
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of imaging ENE (iENE) for predicting pathological (p) metastatic nodes, pENE, major and minor pENE, in upfront operated cases of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) using pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary cancer hospital. Baseline MRI images ofupfront operated OTSCC between 1stJanuary 2021 and 31stDecember 2022 were evaluated after obtaining Institutional Ethical Committee clearance.A total of 224 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were enrolled.Post-operative pathological data was obtained from hospital electronic medical records.
RESULTS: Pathologically, 107 patients (47.76%) showed nodal metastases, of which,ENE was present in 60 patients (26.78%).Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of imaging for predicting pathological metastatic nodes were 52.73%, 99.09%, 80.36%, 96.75% and 96.04% respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of iENE was 36.36%, 93.55%, 85.71%, 58%, and 64.06% respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of major iENE was 27.78%, 100%, 100%, 75.70%, and 77.78% respectively, and 32%, 80.95%, 75%, 40%, and 49.57% respectively for minor iENE.
CONCLUSION: iENE is highly specific but poorly sensitive for detecting pENE and its subtypes, hence, imaging cannot be reliably used as a screening tool to exclude pENE. While predominant necrosis often correlates with pENE, alone, it is not a definitive marker. Matting, >2 mm perinodal fat stranding, and adjacent structure infiltration on imaging are reliable markers of major pENE.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary cancer hospital. Baseline MRI images ofupfront operated OTSCC between 1stJanuary 2021 and 31stDecember 2022 were evaluated after obtaining Institutional Ethical Committee clearance.A total of 224 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were enrolled.Post-operative pathological data was obtained from hospital electronic medical records.
RESULTS: Pathologically, 107 patients (47.76%) showed nodal metastases, of which,ENE was present in 60 patients (26.78%).Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of imaging for predicting pathological metastatic nodes were 52.73%, 99.09%, 80.36%, 96.75% and 96.04% respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of iENE was 36.36%, 93.55%, 85.71%, 58%, and 64.06% respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of major iENE was 27.78%, 100%, 100%, 75.70%, and 77.78% respectively, and 32%, 80.95%, 75%, 40%, and 49.57% respectively for minor iENE.
CONCLUSION: iENE is highly specific but poorly sensitive for detecting pENE and its subtypes, hence, imaging cannot be reliably used as a screening tool to exclude pENE. While predominant necrosis often correlates with pENE, alone, it is not a definitive marker. Matting, >2 mm perinodal fat stranding, and adjacent structure infiltration on imaging are reliable markers of major pENE.