Graduate Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
BMC Cancer. 2012 Jun 12;12:236. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-236.
How to properly manage clinically negative neck of head and neck cancer patients is a controversial topic. Research is now directed toward finding a method sensitive enough to bring the risk of occult metastases below 20%. The aim of this review was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities, including CT, MRI, PET and US, in clinically N0 head and neck cancer patients.
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and the Cochrane Database were searched for relevant original articles published up to May 2011. Inclusion criteria were as follows: articles were reported in English; CT, MRI, PET or US were performed to identify cervical metastases in clinically N0 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; and data were sufficient for the calculation of true-positive or false-negative values. A bivariate random effect model was used to obtain pooled sensitivity and specificity. The positive and negative test probability of neck metastasis was generated based on Bayesian theory and collected data for different pre-test possibilities.
Of the 168 identified relevant articles, 7 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria for CT, 6 studies for MRI, 11 studies for PET and 8 studies for US. There was no difference in sensitivity and specificity among these imaging modalities, except CT was superior to US in specificity. The pooled estimates for sensitivity were 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39% ~ 65%), 65% (34 ~ 87%) 66% (47 ~ 80%), and 66% (45 ~ 77%), on a per-neck basis for CT, MRI, PET and US, respectively. The pooled estimates for specificity were 93% (87% ~ 97%), 81% (64 ~ 91%), 87% (77 ~ 93%), and 78% (71 ~ 83%) for CT, MRI, PET and US, respectively. With pre-examination nodal metastasis probabilities set at 10%, 20% and 30%, the post-exam probabilities of positive nodal metastasis rates were 47%, 66% and 77% for CT; 27%, 46% and 59% for MRI; 36%, 56% and 69% for PET; and 25%, 42% and 56% for US, respectively. Negative nodal metastasis probabilities were 95%, 89% and 82% for CT; 95%, 90% and 84% for MRI; 96%, 91% and 86% for PET; and 95%, 90% and 84% for US, respectively.
Modern imaging modalities offer similar diagnostic accuracy to define and diagnose clinically N0 neck. Minimizing morbidity and avoiding elective neck dissection is acceptable in some select cases.
如何恰当地管理临床阴性的头颈部癌症患者是一个有争议的话题。目前的研究旨在寻找一种足够敏感的方法,将隐匿性转移的风险降低到 20%以下。本综述的目的是比较不同影像学检查(包括 CT、MRI、PET 和 US)在临床 N0 头颈部鳞癌患者中的诊断准确性。
本系统综述和荟萃分析检索了截至 2011 年 5 月发表的相关英文原始文献。纳入标准如下:文章以英文发表;CT、MRI、PET 或 US 用于识别临床 N0 头颈部鳞状细胞癌的颈部转移;并提供足够的数据计算真阳性或假阴性值。使用双变量随机效应模型获得汇总敏感性和特异性。根据贝叶斯理论和不同的预检测可能性生成颈部转移的阳性和阴性检测概率。
在 168 篇相关文章中,有 7 篇符合 CT 检查的所有纳入标准,6 篇符合 MRI 检查的标准,11 篇符合 PET 检查的标准,8 篇符合 US 检查的标准。除 CT 在特异性方面优于 US 外,这些影像学方法的敏感性和特异性没有差异。基于颈部的 CT、MRI、PET 和 US 的敏感性汇总估计值分别为 52%(95%置信区间[CI],39%65%)、65%(34%87%)、66%(47%80%)和 66%(45%77%),特异性汇总估计值分别为 93%(87%97%)、81%(64%91%)、87%(77%93%)和 78%(71%83%)。在术前淋巴结转移概率分别设定为 10%、20%和 30%的情况下,CT 的术后淋巴结转移率的阳性概率分别为 47%、66%和 77%;MRI 分别为 27%、46%和 59%;PET 分别为 36%、56%和 69%;US 分别为 25%、42%和 56%。阴性淋巴结转移概率分别为 CT 95%、89%和 82%;MRI 为 95%、90%和 84%;PET 为 96%、91%和 86%;US 为 95%、90%和 84%。
现代影像学检查在定义和诊断临床 N0 颈部方面具有相似的诊断准确性。在某些特定情况下,降低发病率和避免选择性颈部清扫术是可以接受的。