4.4 Article

Correlation of human papilloma virus status with quantitative perfusion/diffusion/metabolic imaging parameters in the oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison of primary tumour sites and metastatic lymph nodes

期刊

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.04.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. new faculty research fund of Ajou University School of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate the differences in perfusion/diffusion/metabolic imaging parameters according to human papilloma virus (HPV) status in the oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OC-OPSCC), separately in primary tumour sites and metastatic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study comprised 41 patients with primary OC-OPSCCs and 29 patients with metastatic lymph nodes. The perfusion/diffusion/metabolic imaging parameters were measured at the primary tumour and the largest ipsilateral metastatic lymph node. The quantitative parameters were compared between the HPV-positive and -negative groups. RESULTS: The HPV-positivity was 39% (16 patients) for the primary tumours and 51.7% (15 patients) for the metastatic lymph nodes. Patients with HPV-positive tumours had a lower T stage (p=0.034). The metastatic lymph nodes for the HPV-positive patients were bulkier (p=0.016) and more frequently had cystic morphology (p=0.005). The perfusion parameters were not different, regardless of HPV status. The diffusion parameter (ADC(min), p=0.011) of the metastatic lymph nodes in the HPV-positive groups was lower and metabolic parameter (metabolic tumour volume p=0.035 and total lesion glycolysis p=0.037) were higher than those in HPV-negative groups. CONCLUSION: The diffusion and metabolic parameters of metastatic lymph nodes from OC-OPSCC were different according to HPV status. The perfusion parameters did not clearly represent HPV status. (C) 2018 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据