Publication: Oral Kavite ve Orofarinks Kitlelerinin Tanısında Bilgisayarlı Tomografi ve Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
ÖZET Oral kavite ve orofarinksten kaynaklanan kitlelerin pek çoğu klinik ve endoskopik inceleme ile tespit edilebilirler. Tümör yayılımı büyük ölçüde normal görünümlü mukoza altından olduğu için gerçek uzanımının klinik olarak değerlendirilmesi güçtür. Modern tanısal görüntülemenin amacı kitlenin lokalizasyonunu, boyutlarını ve uzanımını ortaya koymaktır. Anatomik işaret yapılara göre (lingual arter ve ven, karotid arter, internal jugular ven, kas, bağ dokusu, kemik yapılar) kitle sınırlarının tespiti ve tümörün orta hattı geçip geçmediğinin değerlendirilmesi de aynı derecede önemlidir. Bu bulgular tedavi planlamasında önemli bir rol oynar. Bu çalışmada oral kavite ve orofarinks kitlelerinde bilgisayarlı tomografi ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme yöntemlerinin tanı ve tedaviye katkıları ve birbirlerine olan üstünlüklerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bilgisayarlı tomografi ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme incelemelerinin değerlendirilmesinde lezyonların yerleşim bölgeleri, boyutları, çevre dokulara uzanımları, kenar özellikleri, kontrast madde sonrası homojenite, dansite ve intensite değişiklikleri araştırılmıştır. 36 hastanın histopatolojik sonuçları 27 malign, 9 benign kitle şeklindeydi. Benign-malign ayırımı için değerlendirilen kriterlerden her iki yöntemde de duyarlılığı ve seçiciliği en yüksek kriter infiltrasyon özelliği olup, manyetik rezonans görüntüleme incelemesinde duyarlılık ve seçicilik oranları çok belirgin olmasa da bilgisayarlı tomografiden daha yüksek idi. Sinyal intensitelerinin ve kontrastlanma özelliklerinin ayırıcı tanıda etkili olmadıkları izlendi. Kemik tutulumlarının değerlendirilmesi ve lenf nodlarının tespitinde bilgisayarlı tomografi ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme yöntemleri eş değerde bulunmuştur. Oral kavite ve orofarinks kitlelerinin değerlendirilmesinde klinik inceleme bulguları görüntüleme yöntemleriyle desteklenmelidir. Benign-malign ayırımında en güvenilir kriter infiltrasyon özelliğidir. Kitlelerin çeşitli özelliklerini değerlendirmede mükemmel yumuşak doku kontrastıyla manyetik rezonans görüntüleme bilgisayarlı tomografiden daha üstündür.Anahtar Sözcükler ağız, ağız neoplazmları, orofarinks, faringeal neoplazmlar VI
ABSTRACT Most of the oral cavity and oropharynx masses can be detected by clinical and endoscopic examinations readily. It is difficult, however, to evaluate the exact extension of the tumor since most of the extension occurs beneath the normal appearing mucosa. The goal of modern diagnostic imaging is to establish the location, size and extent of the mass rather than detecting it. It is also important to determine the margins of the mass with respect to anatomical landmark structures (lingual artery and vein, carotid artery, internal jugular vein; muscles, connective tissue spaces and bone structures) and to assess the tumor spread across the midline. These findings play an important role to ensure appropriate therapy. We aimed to determine the contribution of computed tomography and magnetic resonanace imaging to diagnosis and treatment of oral cavity and oropharynx masses and superiority of each method. The location, size, infiltration into adjacent structures, margins, homogenicity after contrast administration and density/signal intensity characteristics of the masses on imaging findings were assessed. Histologic findings of 36 patients were as 27 malignant and 9 benign masses. Infiltration was the most sensitive and specific characteristic among the criteria evaluated for benign-malignant differentiation. Edge characteristics and homogenicity after contrast administration may contribute to this differentiation. Although it was not significant, the sensitivity and spesificity ratios were somewhat higher at magnetic resonance imaging than computed tomography. Signal intensity and the amount of contrast enhancement were found to be non-significant for this differential diagnosis. Computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were comparable in evaluation of bone invasion and lymph node involvement. In conclusion, we suggest that clinical examination should be combined with imaging methods in evaluation of oral cavity and oropharynx masses. The most reliable criteria in benign-malignant differentiation is the infiltration. Magnetic resonance imaging is superior to computed tomography in evaluation of mass characteristics because of its excellent soft tissue contrast. VIIKey Words mouth, mouth neoplasms, oropharynx, pharyngeal neoplasms
ABSTRACT Most of the oral cavity and oropharynx masses can be detected by clinical and endoscopic examinations readily. It is difficult, however, to evaluate the exact extension of the tumor since most of the extension occurs beneath the normal appearing mucosa. The goal of modern diagnostic imaging is to establish the location, size and extent of the mass rather than detecting it. It is also important to determine the margins of the mass with respect to anatomical landmark structures (lingual artery and vein, carotid artery, internal jugular vein; muscles, connective tissue spaces and bone structures) and to assess the tumor spread across the midline. These findings play an important role to ensure appropriate therapy. We aimed to determine the contribution of computed tomography and magnetic resonanace imaging to diagnosis and treatment of oral cavity and oropharynx masses and superiority of each method. The location, size, infiltration into adjacent structures, margins, homogenicity after contrast administration and density/signal intensity characteristics of the masses on imaging findings were assessed. Histologic findings of 36 patients were as 27 malignant and 9 benign masses. Infiltration was the most sensitive and specific characteristic among the criteria evaluated for benign-malignant differentiation. Edge characteristics and homogenicity after contrast administration may contribute to this differentiation. Although it was not significant, the sensitivity and spesificity ratios were somewhat higher at magnetic resonance imaging than computed tomography. Signal intensity and the amount of contrast enhancement were found to be non-significant for this differential diagnosis. Computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were comparable in evaluation of bone invasion and lymph node involvement. In conclusion, we suggest that clinical examination should be combined with imaging methods in evaluation of oral cavity and oropharynx masses. The most reliable criteria in benign-malignant differentiation is the infiltration. Magnetic resonance imaging is superior to computed tomography in evaluation of mass characteristics because of its excellent soft tissue contrast. VIIKey Words mouth, mouth neoplasms, oropharynx, pharyngeal neoplasms
Description
Tez (tıpta uzmanlık) –Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, 1998
Libra Kayıt No: 32204
Libra Kayıt No: 32204
Keywords
Radyoloji ve Nükleer Tıp, Ağız Neoplazmları, Farenks Neoplazmları, Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Orofaringks Neoplazmları, Mouth Neoplasms, Tomografi-x Işınlı-bilgisayarlı, Pharyngeal Neoplasms, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Oropharyngeal Neoplasms, Tomography-X Ray-Computed
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
Issue
Start Page
End Page
84
