Comparison of 16-slice MSCT and MRI in the assessment of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.006Get rights and content

Abstract

The goal of this retrospective study was to assess the accuracy of 16-slice multislice CT (MSCT) and MRI in staging of patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity. Fifty-two patients with histologically proven primary SCC were examined with contrast enhanced MSCT and MRI at 1.5 T with a combined head and surface neck coil. Image modalities were evaluated in a blinded fashion by two radiologists and an oral-maxillofacial surgeon in consensus concerning tumour depiction, local tumour infiltration and cervical lymph node metastases. Results of the radiological assessment were correlated with the intraoperative and histopathological findings in all patients. 36 of 52 primary tumours (69.2%) were depicted by MSCT while 44 were localized by MRI (84.6%). Regarding muscle infiltration MRI versus MSCT had a sensitivity of 81.8% versus 72.7%, but a low specificity and an accuracy of 63.4% versus 61% and 67.3% versus 63.5%, respectively, were found. There was a trend towards a better detection of bony infiltration by MRI than MSCT with a sensitivity of 100% versus 71.4%, a specificity of 93.3% versus 95.5% and an accuracy 94.2% versus 92.3%, respectively. Detection of cervical lymph node involvement was similar for MRI and MSCT with a sensitivity of 84.2% and 78.9%, a specificity of 63.6% and 75.7% and an accuracy of 71.1% and 76.9%, respectively. For N-staging both methods failed to detect small metastasis. For T-staging MRI was superior to MSCT, because there was a tendency to underestimate the tumour size by MSCT more often (19.4% versus 6.8% by MRI). Therefore, pre-operative MRI is recommended as the basic imaging modality of choice for treatment planning of oral SCC. MSCT is a valid alternative imaging method especially in cases with low patient compliance.

Introduction

Carcinomas of the oral cavity account for 3–5% of all malignancies worldwide and show an increasing incidence [1]. Squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) are the most frequent of all head and neck malignancies [2]. Detailed staging is necessary for treatment planning to optimize patient management and to reduce post-operative morbidity, and tumour recurrence mortality. The therapeutic approach and prognosis of patients with SCC are substantially influenced by local tumour extension and lymph node infiltration [3], [4]. The clinical examination of primary tumour size, its local muscle and mucosal spread as well as cervical lymph nodes is insufficient, because it often underestimates the extent of tumour especially in case of more advanced disease stages owing to the tendency of these lesions to spread submucosally [5]. Additionally, a metastatic involvement of lymph nodes measuring less than 10 mm is well known [6], being straightforwardly misinterpreted as a regular cervical lymph node status. Therefore, cross-sectional imaging methods such as CT and MRI are mandatory for exact therapeutic planning [7]. Especially in larger tumours a precise definition of the borders is necessary for decision making regarding surgery versus primary radiotherapy. In current publications, however, there are no definite guiding principles whether multislice CT (MSCT) or MRI should be used as a primary staging modality of oral cavity carcinomas. Therefore, the goal of this study was to assess and compare the precision of MSCT and MRI in staging of primary SCC of the oral cavity and to find specific indications for the two competitive diagnostic methods. Results of the radiological findings were correlated with the histopathology and intraoperative findings which served as a standard of reference in all patients.

Section snippets

Patients

52 patients (35 males, 17 females), aged 45–91 years (mean 63 ± 11 years) who underwent surgery for a primary SCC of the oral cavity from December 2000 to August 2003 were examined with 16-slice MSCT and MRI. The primary tumours were located at: (1) alveolar ridge (n = 20, 38.4%), (2) floor of the mouth (n = 19, 36.5%), (3) tongue (n = 7, 13.5%), (4) hard palate (n = 4, 7.7%) and (5) cheek mucosa (n = 2, 3.8%). The surgical and pathological findings showed distribution of tumour dimensions according to the

Results

36 of the 52 primary tumours (69.2%) could be depicted by MSCT in comparison to 44 (84.6%) by MRI (Table 1). Smaller stage-T1 tumours (Fig. 1) could be detected by MSCT than by MRI. Particularly on STIR T2 and post-contrast T1 weighted fat suppressed images, the tumour margins could be delineated more accurately. Also pre-treatment T-staging revealed a higher correlation of the radiologically measured tumour size and the histopathological findings: MRI (86.6%) compared to MSCT (75.0%). In

Discussion

CT and MR imaging are routine imaging modalities for pre-operative tumour staging of oral SCC. However, in the literature the value, significance and domain of these two imaging modalities in primary staging has controversially been discussed and there only exist very few studies comparing these two modalities, focussing on the delineation of the primary tumour, tissue infiltration and cervical lymph node involvement [9], [10], [11]. For depiction of the primary tumour of the oral cavity MRI

Conclusions

Dedicated MRI provides satisfactory accuracy superior to 16-slice MSCT scan for the T-staging and depiction of primary oral SCC, it proved useful in particular for the assessment of bone involvement. The accuracy to determine the extent of local soft tissue tumour invasion, however, is fairly low and has to be improved with higher spatial resolution imaging. In the N-staging both imaging modalities were not accurate and suitable to diagnose small metastatic nodules. Therefore, additional

References (28)

  • M.W. van den Brekel et al.

    The incidence of micrometastases in neck dissection specimens obtained from elective neck dissections

    Laryngoscope

    (1996)
  • P. Kleihues et al.

    World Health Organization classification of tumors

    Cancer

    (2000)
  • A. Leslie et al.

    Staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: a comparison of MRI and CT in T- and N-staging

    J Comput Assist Tomogr

    (1999)
  • B. Niederhagen et al.

    Value of computerized tomography and magnetic resonance tomography in diagnosis of malignancies of the mouth cavity and oropharynx

    Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir

    (2000)
  • Cited by (48)

    • Comparison between magnetic resonance and computed tomography in detecting mandibular invasion in oral cancer: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis: MRI x CT in mandibular invasion

      2018, Oral Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      After this stage, seven papers were excluded because two papers included patients with tumors in other primary sites, three papers did not evaluate both tests, one paper included patients who did not undergo both tests, and one used cone beam tomography. Thus, the results of this review were based on data from 11 primary studies [5,7–16] with a total of 477 patients (Fig. 1). The moderate/high risk of bias related to patients’ selection was mainly the consequence of the lack of explicit description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and also due to the exclusion of patients who presented conditions that could interfere with the evaluation of the radiological images.

    • Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the assessment of mandibular invasion by squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Influence on surgical management and post-operative course

      2016, Revue de Stomatologie, de Chirurgie Maxillo-faciale et de Chirurgie Orale
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is generally reported that MRI is superior to CT for the evaluation of soft tissues. Indeed, the main advantage of MRI is its ability to provide excellent contrast resolution allowing a better differentiation between the tumor and surrounding structures [9] thus a better delineation of the tumor [10]. This is particularly interesting in small tumors (stages T1 and T2) of the floor of mouth and gingiva, when CT shows no enhancement or is hindered by beam hardening artifacts.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text