Evaluating oropharyngeal carcinoma with transcervical ultrasound, CT, and MRI

Farhoud Faraji; Stephanie F Coquia; Meghan B Wenderoth; Ericka S Padilla; Dana Blitz; M Robert DeJong; Nafi Aygun; Ulrike M Hamper; Carole Fakhry

doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.01.016

Evaluating oropharyngeal carcinoma with transcervical ultrasound, CT, and MRI

Oral Oncol. 2018 Mar:78:177-185. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Feb 20.

Authors

Farhoud Faraji¹, Stephanie F Coquia², Meghan B Wenderoth³, Ericka S Padilla³, Dana Blitz³, M Robert DeJong³, Nafi Aygun³, Ulrike M Hamper³, Carole Fakhry⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
² The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States; Division of Medical Imaging Products, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
³ The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States.
⁴ Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: cfakhry@jhmi.edu.

PMID: 29496048
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.01.016

Abstract

Objective: To compare transcervical ultrasonography (US) to standard cross-sectional imaging for the visualization of human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC).

Materials and methods: Patients with HPV-OPC and available standard imaging (CT and/or MRI) were identified in clinic and prospectively enrolled. US was performed to visualize the oropharynx and lymph nodes. Tumor characteristics across imaging modalities were evaluated (CT versus MRI, and US versus standard imaging (SI)).

Results: Forty-three patients were included. The overall blinded detection rates for CT and MRI were 83% and 71%, respectively. The unblinded detection rate for US was 98%. Agreement of tumor anatomic subsite was moderate for both CT vs MRI (κ = 0.59) and US vs SI (κ = 0.47). Comparison of tumor size by CT and MRI showed statistically significant correlations in craniocaudal (CC), anteroposterior (AP), and mediolateral (ML) dimensions (Rho_CC = 0.51, p_CC = 0.038; Rho_AP = 0.81, p_AP < 0.0001; Rho_ML = 0.57, p_ML = 0.012). Tumor size estimates by US and SI showed statistically significant correlations in CC and AP, but not ML (Rho_CC = 0.60, p_CC = 0.003; Rho_AP = 0.71, p_AP < 0.0001; Rho_ML = 0.30, p_ML = 0.08). Tumor volume estimates improved correlations between US and SI (Rho = 0.66, p < 0.0001). Stratification of US patients into early and late imaging studies demonstrated an increase in correlation strength from early (Rho = 0.32, p = 0.32) to late groups (Rho = 0.77, p < 0.0001) demonstrating that ultrasound accuracy improved with experience.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that transcervical ultrasonography is a sensitive and relatively accurate adjunct to standard imaging for the evaluation of oropharyngeal tumors. Its cost, portability, and potential for in-clinic and serial imaging render US an attractive modality to further develop for imaging oropharyngeal tumors.

Keywords: Computed tomography; Head and neck; Magnetic resonance imaging; Oropharynx; Squamous cell carcinoma; Ultrasound.

MeSH terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / diagnostic imaging*
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods*
Male
Middle Aged
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms / diagnostic imaging*
Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods*
Ultrasonography / methods*