ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Feasibility Study of Preoperative CT-Derived Volume and Intraoperative Tissue Mass Measurements for Lymph Node Yield Prediction in Cervical Lymphadenectomy.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feasibility Study of Preoperative CT-Derived Volume and Intraoperative Tissue Mass Measurements for Lymph Node Yield Prediction in Cervical Lymphadenectomy.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Standard treatment for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) includes cervical lymph node dissection (LND), where lymph node yield (LNY) is directly correlated with survival. Validated preoperative or intraoperative LNY prediction tools are lacking. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility of preoperative CT-derived volume estimates (CTV) of level II-IV neck dissection targets and direct intraoperative mass measurements (IOM) of resected lymphadenectomy specimens as potential tools for LNY prediction. Methods: 12 patients underwent standard-of-care level II-IV cervical LND by a single experienced surgeon with IOM recorded at closure. LNY was recorded using a standard LNY count and an additional comprehensive (CLNY) protocol. A novel segmentation protocol was designed to generate patient-specific level II-IV CTV estimates. Five independent readers tested protocol reliability using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) for segmentation overlap and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of CTV measurements. Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) between IOM CTV and LNY metrics were reported. Results: This segmentation protocol showed high inter-rater reliability of CTV estimates (ICC = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94) and substantial spatial overlap amongst readers (mean DSC = 0.72 ± 0.06). The strongest correlations, for which the study had adequate statistical power, included IOM with CLNY (Pearson correlation coefficient, PCC =0.87; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96) and mean CTV with IOM (PCC = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). Moderate correlations were observed between CTV and CLNY (PCC = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.20-0.91) and between IOM and standard LNY (PCC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92). Conclusions: The novel segmentation protocol produced reliable CTVs with strong correlation to intraoperative tissue-mass measurements (PCC = 0.89). While IOM showed strong correlation with CLNY (PCC = 0.87), both findings exceeded the threshold for adequate statistical power in this pilot study. The moderate correlations between CTV and LNY metrics (PCC = 0.59-0.70), though statistically significant, were below the study's power threshold and require validation in larger cohorts before conclusions can be drawn about their predictive utility.
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.