Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28608737›Full record

ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2017

Preoperative

Joshua K Cho, Thomas J Ow, Andrew Y Lee, Richard V Smith, Nicolas F Schlecht, Bradley A Schiff, Andrew B Tassler, Juan Lin, Renee M Moadel, Ana Valdivia and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of PET/CT on Staging and Treatment of Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
    Article
  7. Prognostic value ofBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
    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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua K Cho1 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Thomas J Ow2 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bronx, New York, USA.
Andrew Y Lee2 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bronx, New York, USA.
Richard V Smith2 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bronx, New York, USA.
Nicolas F Schlecht1 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Bradley A Schiff2 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bronx, New York, USA.
Andrew B Tassler4 Weill Cornell Medical College, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Juan Lin1 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Renee M Moadel5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Ana Valdivia5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Tony Abraham5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Edwin Gulko5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Matthew Neimark5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Berrin Ustun5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Jacqueline A Bello5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Keivan Shifteh5 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Bronx, New York, USA.
Montefiore Medical Center · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USCornell University · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

CTSA Administrative Supplement for Informatics Core: A novel AI/ML system to predict respiratory failure and ARDS in Covid-19 patientsUL1TR002556 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI KELLER, MARLA J, KIM, MIMI Y · 2018 to 2022
$26.7M
Core-010UL1TR001073 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI KELLER, MARLA J, SHAMOON, HARRY · 2013 to 2017
$21.3M
Paul Calabresis Career Development Award For Clinical Oncology K12CA132783 · NCI · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI PEREZ-SOLER, ROMAN, VERMA, AMIT K. · 2009 to 2019
$8.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001073NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002556NCI NIH HHS K12 CA132783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to compare the accuracy of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in detecting cervical nodal metastases in patients treated with neck dissection and to scrutinize the ability of each modality to determine nodal stage. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Subjects and Methods Patients who underwent neck dissection at our institution for primary treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and had received preoperative PET/CT and CECT were included in this study. Imaging studies were reinterpreted by 3 specialists within the field and compared for interreader agreement. Concordance between radiology and histopathology was measured using neck levels and sides, along with patient nodal stage. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and agreement coefficients were calculated. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Sensitivity was 0.69 and 0.94 (level and side) for PET/CT vs 0.53 and 0.66 for CECT ( P = .056, P = .001). Specificity was 0.86 and 0.56 for PET/CT vs 0.91 and 0.76 for CECT ( P = .014, P = .024). No significant difference was found in overall accuracy ( P = .33, P = .88). The overall agreement percentages between N stage called by imaging modality and pathology were 52% and 55% for PET/CT and CECT, respectively. Conclusion No significant difference in sensitivity was found between PET/CT and CECT. CECT was found to have superior specificity compared with PET/CT. The information gleaned from each modality in the pretreatment evaluation of HNSCC appears to be complementary.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeckNeoplasm StagingPreoperative CareReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticalscontrast-enhanced CThead and neck squamous cell carcinomaneck dissectionnodal stagingPET/CTpreoperative imaging

Identifiers

PMID28608737
PMCPMC6372372
OpenAlexW2626788260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.