• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
    • CHUGGS
    • General Surgery
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
    • CHUGGS
    • General Surgery
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of EMERCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Links

    About EMERPoliciesDerbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation TrustLeicester Partnership TrustNHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCGNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustSherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals Of Leicester NHS TrustOther Resources

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies predicting diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in detecting extracapsular spread in head and neck cancers

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Author
    Ameerally, Phil
    Conboy, Peter
    Mair, Manish
    Oladejo, Olaleye
    Salha, Rami
    Vaidhyanath, Ram
    Keyword
    CT
    ECS
    MRI
    PET
    USG
    accuracy
    head and neck cancer
    imaging
    neck node
    sensitivity
    specificity
    Show allShow less
    Date
    2024-04-10
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    10.3390/cancers16081457
    Publisher's URL
    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/8/1457
    Abstract
    Background: Extracapsular spread (ECS) is the extension of cancer cells beyond the lymph node capsule and is a significant prognostic factor in head and neck cancers. This meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. Methodology: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. They included studies that were published between 1990 and December 2023 and that used histopathology as the reference standard for ECS. Results: The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CT scan were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.53-0.73) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.74-0.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 0.83 (95% CI = 0.71-0.90) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.73-0.92), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET were 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.85) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.92-0.94), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of USG were 0.80 (95% CI = 0.68-0.88) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.91), respectively. MRI had significantly higher sensitivity than CT scan (p-0.05). The specificity of CT and MRI was not significantly different (p-0.99). PET scan had the highest specificity among all imaging modalities. Conclusion: MRI is the most accurate imaging modality for detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. CT scan is a reasonable alternative, but PET scan may be considered when high specificity is required. USG may not add any further benefit in detecting ECS.
    Citation
    Mair, M., Singhavi, H., Pai, A., Khan, M., Conboy, P., Olaleye, O., Salha, R., Ameerally, P., Vaidhyanath, R., & Chaturvedi, P. (2024). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 29 Studies Predicting Diagnostic Accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in Detecting Extracapsular Spread in Head and Neck Cancers. Cancers, 16(8), 1457. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16081457
    Type
    Article
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18602
    Collections
    Cancer
    General Surgery

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.