Performance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in comparison to conventional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of bone invasion in oral squamous cell cancer (OSCC): a prospective study.
Humans
Prospective Studies
Spiral Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
/ diagnostic imaging
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Mouth Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Epithelial Cells
Bone invasion
Bone resection
Computed tomography
Cone-beam computed tomography
Head and neck cancer
Magnetic resonance imaging
Mandibulectomy
Oral cancer
Oral squamous cell carcinoma
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2024
16 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
19
10
2023
accepted:
21
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
17
3
2024
entrez:
17
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Oral squamous carcinoma (OSCC) is often diagnosed at late stages and bone erosion or invasion of the jawbone is frequently present. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are known to have high diagnostic sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in detecting these bone affections in patients suffering from OSCC. To date, the existing data regarding the impact of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) have been weak. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether CBCT is a suitable tool to detect bone erosion or invasion in patients with OSCC. We investigated in a prospective trial the impact of CBCT in the diagnosis of bone erosion or invasion in patients with OSCC who underwent surgery. Every participant received a CBCT, CT, and MRI scan during staging. Imaging modalities were evaluated by two specialists in oral and maxillofacial surgery (CBCT) and two specialists in radiology (CT and MRI) in a blinded way, to determine whether a bone affection was present or not. Reporting used the following 3-point system: no bony destruction ("0"), cortical bone erosion ("1"), or medullary bone invasion ("2"). Histological examination or a follow-up served to calculate the sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of the imaging modalities. Our results revealed high diagnostic sensitivities (95.6%, 84.4%, and 88.9%), specificities (87.0%, 91.7%, and 91.7%), and accuracies (89.5%, 89.5%, and 90.8%) for CBCT, CT, and MRI. A pairwise comparison found no statistical difference between CBCT, CT, and MRI. Our data support the routine use of CBCT in the diagnosis of bone erosion and invasion in patients with OSCC as diagnostic accuracy is equal to CT and MRI, the procedure is cost-effective, and it can be performed during initial contact with the patient.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Oral squamous carcinoma (OSCC) is often diagnosed at late stages and bone erosion or invasion of the jawbone is frequently present. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are known to have high diagnostic sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in detecting these bone affections in patients suffering from OSCC. To date, the existing data regarding the impact of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) have been weak. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether CBCT is a suitable tool to detect bone erosion or invasion in patients with OSCC.
METHODS
METHODS
We investigated in a prospective trial the impact of CBCT in the diagnosis of bone erosion or invasion in patients with OSCC who underwent surgery. Every participant received a CBCT, CT, and MRI scan during staging. Imaging modalities were evaluated by two specialists in oral and maxillofacial surgery (CBCT) and two specialists in radiology (CT and MRI) in a blinded way, to determine whether a bone affection was present or not. Reporting used the following 3-point system: no bony destruction ("0"), cortical bone erosion ("1"), or medullary bone invasion ("2"). Histological examination or a follow-up served to calculate the sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of the imaging modalities.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our results revealed high diagnostic sensitivities (95.6%, 84.4%, and 88.9%), specificities (87.0%, 91.7%, and 91.7%), and accuracies (89.5%, 89.5%, and 90.8%) for CBCT, CT, and MRI. A pairwise comparison found no statistical difference between CBCT, CT, and MRI.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our data support the routine use of CBCT in the diagnosis of bone erosion and invasion in patients with OSCC as diagnostic accuracy is equal to CT and MRI, the procedure is cost-effective, and it can be performed during initial contact with the patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38493083
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04057-4
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-04057-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
341Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Nov;123(6):e888-e893
pubmed: 35691559
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Mar-Apr;24(2):216-25
pubmed: 19492636
Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2019 Dec;163(4):302-308
pubmed: 31435075
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004 Mar;33(2):83-6
pubmed: 15313998
Eurasian J Med. 2019 Oct;51(3):298-306
pubmed: 31692726
Acta Radiol. 2010 Dec;51(10):1111-9
pubmed: 20929295
Head Neck. 2017 Oct;39(10):2016-2020
pubmed: 28703386
Eur J Radiol. 2009 Oct;72(1):75-81
pubmed: 18653297
J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(2):693-7
pubmed: 24621726
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Jun;37(6):535-41
pubmed: 18406107
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Apr;18(3):961-7
pubmed: 23873323
Eur Radiol. 1998;8(9):1552-7
pubmed: 9866760
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Sep;78(9):1645-1652
pubmed: 32445627
Laryngoscope. 2000 Jan;110(1):65-72
pubmed: 10646718
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Jul;61(7):751-8
pubmed: 12856245
Oral Oncol. 2012 Apr;48(4):361-6
pubmed: 22155255
In Vivo. 2011 Sep-Oct;25(5):795-9
pubmed: 21753136
J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017 Dec 02;51(3 Suppl 1):S102-S121
pubmed: 29354314
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(6):20120346
pubmed: 23420854
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:356-387
pubmed: 30100160
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Jun;66(3):396-418
pubmed: 18082349
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Nov 26;6(1):92
pubmed: 33243986
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;44(1):8-15
pubmed: 25442744
Cancer Epidemiol. 2018 Dec;57:120-126
pubmed: 30396144
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2022 Jan;52(1):67-105
pubmed: 34838256
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Aug;30(7):1285-92
pubmed: 19461061
Anticancer Res. 2018 Feb;38(2):955-962
pubmed: 29374727
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 May;39(5):436-9
pubmed: 20211543
J Craniofac Surg. 2022 Jul-Aug 01;33(5):1484-1487
pubmed: 35758435
Oncologist. 2010;15(9):994-1001
pubmed: 20798198
BMC Oral Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):226
pubmed: 33933043
Cancer Res. 1988 Jun 1;48(11):3282-7
pubmed: 3365707
Dent Clin North Am. 2018 Jul;62(3):361-391
pubmed: 29903556
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Sep;112(3):367-74
pubmed: 21778080