TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities in detection of histopathological extranodal extension
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Abdel-Halim, Chadi Nimeh
AU - Rosenberg, Tine
AU - Dyrvig, Anne Kirstine
AU - Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming
AU - Sørensen, Jens Ahm
AU - Rohde, Max
AU - Godballe, Christian
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This work was supported by the University of Southern Denmark; the Region of Southern Denmark; Odense University Hospital; and the Harboe fund. The sponsors had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of date, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Objective: To present an up to date systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the most used imaging modalities in detection of histopathological extra nodal extension (ENE) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Materials and methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on March 27th 2020. Screening, inclusion, quality assessment, and data extraction were done by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using the bivariate model approach after pooling the studies according to imaging modality. Heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression. Comparison was done by meta-regression and sub-group analyses. Results: Out of 476 initial hits, 25 studies were included for analysis. Of these, 14 dealt with CT, nine with PET/CT, four with MRI, two with ultrasound, and none with PET/MRI. Meta-analysis based on a total sample size of 3391 showed that CT had a sensitivity of 76% [67–82%] and specificity of 77% [69–83%], MRI a sensitivity of 72% [64–79%] and specificity of 78% [57–90%], and PET/CT a sensitivity of 80% [76–84%] and specificity of 83% [74–90%] in the ability to predict ENE. No meta-analysis could be done on ultrasound. There were no significant differences between modalities in overall accuracy; however, PET/CT had significantly higher sensitivity than CT and MRI. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the ability of CT, MRI, and PET/CT to diagnose histopathological ENE, except that PET/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than CT and MRI.
AB - Objective: To present an up to date systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the most used imaging modalities in detection of histopathological extra nodal extension (ENE) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Materials and methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on March 27th 2020. Screening, inclusion, quality assessment, and data extraction were done by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using the bivariate model approach after pooling the studies according to imaging modality. Heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression. Comparison was done by meta-regression and sub-group analyses. Results: Out of 476 initial hits, 25 studies were included for analysis. Of these, 14 dealt with CT, nine with PET/CT, four with MRI, two with ultrasound, and none with PET/MRI. Meta-analysis based on a total sample size of 3391 showed that CT had a sensitivity of 76% [67–82%] and specificity of 77% [69–83%], MRI a sensitivity of 72% [64–79%] and specificity of 78% [57–90%], and PET/CT a sensitivity of 80% [76–84%] and specificity of 83% [74–90%] in the ability to predict ENE. No meta-analysis could be done on ultrasound. There were no significant differences between modalities in overall accuracy; however, PET/CT had significantly higher sensitivity than CT and MRI. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the ability of CT, MRI, and PET/CT to diagnose histopathological ENE, except that PET/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than CT and MRI.
KW - Extranodal extension
KW - Head and neck cancer
KW - Larynx
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Oral cancer
KW - Pharynx
KW - Positron-emission tomography
KW - Squamous cell carcinoma
KW - Ultrasonography
KW - X-ray computed tomography
U2 - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105169
DO - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105169
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 33493691
AN - SCOPUS:85099628691
VL - 114
JO - Oral Oncology
JF - Oral Oncology
SN - 1368-8375
M1 - 105169
ER -