Comparison between magnetic resonance and computed tomography in detecting mandibular invasion in oral cancer: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis MRI x CT in mandibular invasion
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
13
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Citação
ORAL ONCOLOGY, v.78, p.114-118, 2018
Resumo
Background: Suspicion of mandibular invasion directly influences perioperative strategy, requiring marginal or segmental mandibulectomy, or reconstruction in some cases. This has a considerable impact on outcome and quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance and computed tomography in the prediction of mandibular invasion in patients with oral cavity cancer. Method: A systematic review was conducted, including diagnostic studies comparing magnetic resonance imaging with computed tomography in the prediction of bone invasion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood values and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were calculated. Results: The electronic and manual search identified 346 articles. Of these, 11 studies were included in the systematic review for a total of 477 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood values for MRI were 78%, 86%, 5.29 and 0.23, respectively. For CT, they were 76%, 89%, 6.00 and 0.28, respectively. The sROC curves for MRI and CT were 82.3% and 82.5%, respectively. Conclusion: No superiority was observed between the diagnostic methods regarding mandibular invasion detection.
Palavras-chave
Tomography, Magnetic resonance imaging, Mouth neoplasms, Mandibular injuries, Review
Referências
- Arya S, 2014, CLIN RADIOL, V69, P916, DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2014.04.013
- Dedivitis Rogério A., 2004, Rev. Bras. Otorrinolaringol., V70, P35, DOI 10.1590/S0034-72992004000100006
- Farrow ES, 2016, REV STOMATOL CHIR, V117, P311, DOI 10.1016/j.revsto.2016.06.004
- Gu DH, 2010, ACTA RADIOL, V51, P1111, DOI 10.3109/02841851.2010.520027
- Hendrikx AWF, 2010, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V39, P436, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.008
- Huang SH, 2011, CLIN NUCL MED, V36, P518, DOI 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318217566f
- Imaizumi A, 2006, AM J NEURORADIOL, V27, P114
- Kolk A, 2014, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V41, P1363, DOI 10.1007/s00259-014-2726-6
- Pinto FR, 2012, REV BRAS CIR CABECA, V41, P53
- Rajesh A, 2008, BRIT J ORAL MAX SURG, V46, P11, DOI 10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.08.024
- Silva M, 2016, RADIOL MED, V121, P704, DOI 10.1007/s11547-016-0654-1
- Van Cann EM, 2008, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V37, P535, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.02.009
- van den Brekel MWM, 1998, EUR RADIOL, V8, P1552, DOI 10.1007/s003300050585
- Vidiri A, 2010, J EXP CLIN CANC RES, V29, DOI 10.1186/1756-9966-29-73
- Whiting PF, 2011, ANN INTERN MED, V155, P529, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
- Wiener E, 2006, EUR J RADIOL, V58, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.006
- Zupi A, 1996, J CRANIO MAXILL SURG, V24, P281, DOI 10.1016/S1010-5182(96)80059-X