Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262579›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016

Pre-surgical assessment of mandibular bone invasion from oral cancer: comparison between different imaging techniques and relevance of radiologist expertise.

Mario Silva, Eleonora I Zambrini, Gianfranco Chiari, Ilaria Montermini, Carmelinda Manna, Tito Poli, Davide Lanfranco, Enrico Sesenna, Elena Thai, Nicola Sverzellati

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mario SilvaSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy. mario.silva@unipr.it.
Eleonora I ZambriniSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini e Medicina di Laboratorio, IRCCS Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Gianfranco ChiariSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Ilaria MonterminiSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Carmelinda MannaSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Tito PoliUnità Operativa di Chirurgia Maxillo Facciale, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Biotecnologiche e Traslazionali, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Davide LanfrancoUnità Operativa di Chirurgia Maxillo Facciale, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Biotecnologiche e Traslazionali, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Enrico SesennaUnità Operativa di Chirurgia Maxillo Facciale, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Biotecnologiche e Traslazionali, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Elena ThaiUnità Operativa di Anatomia e Istologia Patologica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Nicola SverzellatiSezione di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceContrast MediaFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMandibular NeoplasmsMouth NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaBone infiltrationComputed tomographyDiagnostic performanceInterobserver agreementMagnetic resonance imagingOral cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.