ReviewCancers2024
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 29 Studies Predicting Diagnostic Accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in Detecting Extracapsular Spread in Head and Neck Cancers.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers Associated With Extranodal Extension (ENE) in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OPSCC): A Systematic Review.Head & neck · 2026Pooled it
- Recent advances in PET/MR imaging for head and neck tumors: a systematic review of the last three years.La Radiologia medica · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review of artificial intelligence and radiomics for preoperative prediction of extranodal extension and lymph node metastasis in oropharyngeal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy enables radiotherapy avoidance in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer: a multicentre Phase II trial.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Refining Nodal Staging in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma with CT-based Extranodal Extension.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Imaging-Detected Extranodal Extension in Head and Neck Cancer: Current Evidence, Standardized Grading, and Clinical Implications.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- [Clinical Significance of Extranodal Extension in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Status and Future Prospects].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- MRI-detected extranodal extension as a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness.European radiology · 2025Article
- Adaptive radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer with daily adapt-to-shape workflow on 1.5 T MRI-linac: Preliminary outcomes and comparison with helical tomotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical Utility and Limitations of Circulating HPV DNA in Tonsillar Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Narrative Review.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracapsular spread (ECS) is the extension of cancer cells beyond the lymph node capsule and is a significant prognostic factor in head and neck cancers. This meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. METHODOLOGY: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, PET, and USG in detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. They included studies that were published between 1990 and December 2023 and that used histopathology as the reference standard for ECS.
resultsThe pooled sensitivity and specificity of CT scan were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.53-0.73) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.74-0.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 0.83 (95% CI = 0.71-0.90) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.73-0.92), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET were 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.85) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.92-0.94), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of USG were 0.80 (95% CI = 0.68-0.88) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.91), respectively. MRI had significantly higher sensitivity than CT scan (
conclusionMRI is the most accurate imaging modality for detecting ECS in head and neck cancers. CT scan is a reasonable alternative, but PET scan may be considered when high specificity is required. USG may not add any further benefit in detecting ECS.
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.