ArticleNeuroradiology2025
PET/MR for predicting extranodal extension of head and neck cancer.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lymph Node Metastasis in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Evolving Prognostic Markers, Molecular Insights, and Implications for Precision Staging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric FDG-PET/MR in identifying pathologic extranodal extension (pENE) of lymph node metastases (LNM) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Retrospective analysis of 57 HNSCC patients who underwent preoperative FDG-PET/MR imaging. PET parameters of LNM SUVmax and MTV, lymph node size as well as MR parameters flare sign, shaggy margin sign and vanishing border sign were analyzed. Histopathological assessment of neck dissection specimens served as standard of reference.
resultsA logistic regression model consisting of lymph node size (p = 0.029), shaggy margin sign (p = 0.031) and MTV (p = 0.035) proved that all three parameters significantly contributed to the prediction of pENE (χ²(3) = 54.23, p < 0.001). A second model without the reader-dependent parameter shaggy margin sign yielded similar results (χ²(2) = 45.36, p < 0.001), with every increase in lymph node size (p = 0.006) by 1 mm increasing the likelihood of pENE by a factor of 1.41 (95%-CI[1.11, 1.81]), and every increase in MTV (p = 0.023) by 1 cm3 increasing the likelihood of pENE by a factor of 1.64 (95%-CI[1.07, 2.50]). This model yielded an accuracy of 94.7% (95%-CI [85.4, 98.9]) for predicting pENE, with a specificity of 97.3% (95%-CI [85.8, 99.9]) and a sensitivity of 90.0% (95%-CI [68.3, 98.8]). Internal validation using a test dataset confirmed high accuracy of this model.
conclusionPET/MR-based multivariate binomial logistic regression models consisting of MTV, lymph node size and/or shaggy lymph node margins predict pENE with high accuracy.
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.