ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016
Pre-surgical assessment of mandibular bone invasion from oral cancer: comparison between different imaging techniques and relevance of radiologist expertise.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging modalities for detecting jaw bone invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.Odontology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography in assessing bone invasion in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Evaluation of virtual surgical planning systems and customized devices in fibula free flap mandibular reconstruction.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare diagnostic performance between computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of bone infiltration from oral cancer, and to test interobserver agreement between radiologists with different expertises. MATERIALS AND
methodsPre-surgical CT and MRI were reviewed independently by two radiologists with different expertises in head and neck oncology. A third radiologist reviewed CT and MRI simultaneously. Interobserver agreement was calculated by Cohen test. Association between radiological evidence of bone infiltration and histological reference was tested by Fisher's exact test or Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Receiving operator curve was calculated and area under the curve (AUC) was compared between CT, MRI, and both methods together.
resultsInterobserver agreement was moderate: the trainee under-reported periosteal reaction on CT and inferior alveolar canal involvement on MRI. Imaging findings associated with histologic evidence of bone infiltration were: periosteal reaction and cortical erosion on CT; bone marrow involvement, contrast enhancement within bone; and inferior alveolar canal involvement on MRI. Sensitivity of MRI alone (74 %) was higher than CT (52 %). Simultaneous review of CT and MRI showed the highest specificity (91 %), with the increase of diagnostic performance in the subgroup of subjects with positive MRI (AUC = 0.689; p = 0.044).
conclusionHigher expertise allows pre-surgical detection of clinically relevant signs of bone infiltration sensitivity of MRI alone is higher than CT for the detection of bone infiltration from oral cancer. In MRI positive cases, diagnostic integration with combined review of CT and MRI is suggested for optimal diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27262579What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.