ArticleScientific reports2017
The application of ultrasound in detecting lymph nodal recurrence in the treated neck of head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of clinical radiosensitivity in patients with head-neck squamous cell carcinoma from pre-treatment quantitative ultrasound radiomics.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound in Neck Node NI-RADS Category 2.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Feature level quantitative ultrasound and CT information fusion to predict the outcome of head & neck cancer radiotherapy treatment: Enhanced principal component analysis.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Review on Lymph Node Metastases, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, and Lymphadenectomy in Sarcoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Ultrasound and nanomaterial: an efficient pair to fight cancer.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic performance of core needle biopsy for nodal recurrences in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation in the treatment of early-stage tongue cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The diagnostic value and safety of modified needle aspiration biopsy for superficial lymphadenectasis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Quantitative ultrasound radiomics in predicting recurrence for patients with node-positive head-neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with radical radiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2021Observational
- Risk Factors Analysis of Pathologically Confirmed Cervical Lymph Nodes Metastasis in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients with Clinically Negative Cervical Lymph Node: Results from a Cancer Center of Central China.Journal of Cancer · 2019Article
- The Applications and Potential Developments of Ultrasound in Oral Cancer Management.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection of neck lymph node (LN) recurrence is paramount in improving the prognosis of treated head and neck cancer patients. Ultrasound (US) with US-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) have been shown to have great accuracy for LN diagnoses in the untreated neck. However, in the treated neck with fibrosis, their roles are not clarified. Here, we retrospectively review 153 treated head and neck cancer patients who had received US and US-guided FNA/CNB. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, size (short-axis diameter >0.8 cm) (odds ratio (OR) 4.19, P = 0.007), round shape (short/long axis ratio >0.5) (OR 3.44, P = 0.03), heterogeneous internal echo (OR 3.92, P = 0.009) and irregular margin (OR 7.32, P < 0.001) are effective US features in predicting recurrent LNs in the treated neck. However, hypoechogenicity (OR 2.38, P = 0.289) and chaotic/absent vascular pattern (OR 3.04, P = 0.33) are ineffective. US-guided FNA (sensitivity/specificity: 95.24%/97.92%) is effective in the treated neck, though with high non-diagnostic rate (29.69%). US-guided CNB (sensitivity/specificity: 84.62%/100%) is also effective, though with low negative predictive value (62.5%). Overall, US with US-guided FNA/CNB are still effective diagnostic tools for neck nodal recurrence surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.