Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEDITORIAL

Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in the Neck: Radiologic Criteria

Jonas A. Castelijns and Michiel W. M. van den Brekel
American Journal of Neuroradiology January 2001, 22 (1) 3-4;
Jonas A. Castelijns
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michiel W. M. van den Brekel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Regional metastasis is one of the most important factors in the prognosis and treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer. In addition, because lymphatic metastasis is a frequent event that impacts prognosis, a decision to treat the lymph nodes in the neck has to be made in almost all patients, even if metastases are not apparent clinically. It is therefore important to assess as reliably as possible whether a patient has regional lymph node metastases.

It is well known that palpation is an inaccurate technique to stage cancer in the neck. In a recent decision-analysis study, a risk of occult neck metastases (in a palpatory-negative neck) above 20% was found to be indicative for elective neck treatment, either radiation therapy or surgery. This risk of occult metastasis, which can occur in both sides of the neck, is determined by characteristics of the primary tumor such as size, site, and several biological criteria (1). Because of the increased risk of nodal metastases, even in clinically negative necks, most patients with tumors staged as T2 or larger undergo some form of elective neck treatment. The disadvantage of this policy is that the majority of patients do not harbor metastases and, therefore, will be subjected to the morbidity of unnecessary treatment. By detecting some otherwise clinically occult adenopathy, modern imaging techniques may have increased sensitivity for detecting positive nodes, and consequently, may decrease the risk of occult metastasis to below 20%. If this can be accomplished, the clinician may refrain from a neck dissection or radiation, and adapt a wait-and-see policy with careful follow-up to detect a neck metastasis as early as possible (2).

Imaging techniques like CT, MR, and sonography are more accurate than palpation. Most clinicians have maintained, however, that the accuracy of these techniques is not high enough to justify a change of policy. Indeed, in 25% of pathologically verified tumor-positive neck dissections, only micrometastases smaller than 3 mm, which are undetectable by most techniques, are present (3). Lymph nodes 2–3 mm in size can be seen as nodules on CT and MR images, and may even be better seen with high-resolution scanners. Nonetheless, differentiation between benign and malignant metastatic disease still remains a problem. Recently, other techniques such as radioimmunoscintigraphy (4) and positron emission tomography (5) have been explored, but these expensive techniques still have to prove their value in clinical practice.

Sonographic criteria, such as nodal size and configuration of the lesion, and Doppler sonographic criteria have been studied extensively for their value in differentiating between benign and malignant lymphatic disease in the neck. The minimal axial diameter appears to be the most accurate size criterion, compared to the maximal axial diameter and the longitudinal diameter (6, 7). Regarding the aspect of lymph nodes on sonograms, the echogenic hilus appears to be a reliable parameter (7). The configuration (shape) of the node might be important, but some authors doubt its value (8). Sonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has been shown to be very accurate in the evaluation of regional metastatic disease. It combines the high sensitivity of sonography with the excellent specificity of FNAC. The reported sensitivity of sonography-guided FNAC in the N0 neck ranges from 48% to 73% (6, 9, 10), whereas the reported specificity is 100% (11). In the United States, this technique has received less acceptance because it is labor-intensive and operator-dependent. False-negative results may be the result of sampling the wrong node or the wrong part of the correct node. Furthermore, the cytopathologist may overlook small nests or single tumor cells.

The potential value of Doppler sonographic criteria (avascular pattern, scattered pattern, peripheral vascularity) as an adjunct to differentiate between benign and metastatic lymph nodes has been the topic of various reports. Because gray-scale criteria are not very accurate, there is a great need for additional criteria for small lymph nodes. In this issue of the AJNR, Yonetsu et al (page 163) report on the Doppler sonographic findings in 338 lymph nodes from 73 patients with head and neck cancer in an effort to improve the accuracy of conventional sonography. The authors were able to define a new, more accurate combination of size and Doppler criteria. They report that the combined use of short-axis diameter and Doppler blood flow pattern (the absence or presence of “normal” hilar flow) increased the diagnostic accuracy compared to the use of short axis diameter alone. These combined criteria yield a very high sensitivity (> 89%) and specificity (> 94%). The authors performed a histologically verified study in which they analyzed criteria for metastatic lymphadenopathy. Although the authors performed a large study and were able to improve the results of conventional sonography significantly, the article raises some methodological questions. To allow comparison of results of different authors, the reporting of the results should be as uniform as possible. For neck imaging, the sensitivity and specificity per neck side should be reported, ideally for the clinically N0 neck separately, as this is the most clinically relevant. The size criteria used should be defined, as well as the histopathologic techniques used to assess the specimen. If the neck is categorized into different levels, the definition of the levels as proposed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology should be used. Yonetsu et al compared sonographic-histopathologic findings per node, and correlated the nodes on the sonogram and in the surgical specimen on the basis of relation to surrounding structures and size of the nodes. This method may cause false sonographic-histopathologic correlations, however, especially in the case of small nodes. Because only a limited number of nodes per neck side were correlated, there might have been small metastatic nodes in the specimen that were not seen on sonograms and thus not included in the study. The authors introduced a new classification of neck levels without indicating how it differed from the internationally accepted classification. Furthermore, the authors defined their short-axis diameter as “the greatest diameter on the maximum axial cross-sectional area of a node.” Actually, this appears to be the maximum axial diameter. The paramount question is what value can be assigned to these findings for making treatment decisions in patients with head and neck cancer?

First, the predictive value of power Doppler parameters, such as hilar blood flow, remains controversial. In the March 2000 issue of the AJNR, this same group compared in a multivariate study the gray-scale and power Doppler parameters (7). In contrast to their current article, they reported that Doppler features did not add significant predictive value to gray-scale criteria in differentiating metastatic from reactive nodes.

Second, clinicians are especially interested in the accuracy of modern imaging techniques for staging of the N0 neck. The high sensitivity and specificity reported in this article only have a limited clinical value as they were calculated per lymph node, and probably a majority of the metastatic lymph nodes were palpable. As a consequence, the sensitivity would have been lower if the study had been limited to an N0-neck population.

Third, clinicians are more interested in the status of the entire neck than in the presence or absence of metastatic disease in lymph nodes separately. Thus, after having defined the optimal criteria in single nodes, it would have been very interesting to see if these new criteria were advantageous for the entire neck as well.

Yonetsu et al studied the potential of a combination of gray-scale and duplex sonography criteria to discriminate between benign and malignant disease, and found a possibly valuable new combination of criteria. They should be given credit for this observation and report. The clinical value and accuracy of this new combination of criteria will have to be assessed in a population of patients with cancer and stage N0 (clinically nonpalpable) neck disease. If the duplex criteria are accurate in very small lymph nodes, there might be an important impact on clinical decision making. On the other hand, a combination of gray-scale and duplex sonography criteria may also be helpful in selecting nodes for sonography-guided FNAC. The use of contrast-enhanced Doppler sonography may also further increase the reliability and accuracy of duplex criteria in small lymph nodes.

References

  1. ↵
    Okamoto M, Ozeki S, Watanabe T, Lida Y, Tashiro H. Cervical lymph node metastasis in carcinoma of the tongue: correlation between clinical and histopathological findings and metastasis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1988;16:31-34
    PubMed
  2. ↵
    Weiss MH, Harrison LB, Isaacs RS. Use of decision analysis in planning and management strategy for the stage N0 neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:699-702
  3. ↵
    van den Brekel MWM, Stel HV, Castelijns JA, et al. Cervical lymph node metastasis: assessment of radiologic criteria. Radiology 1990;177:379-384
    PubMed
  4. ↵
    van Dongen GA, Leverstein H, Roos JC, Quak JJ, van den Brekel MW, van Lingen A, et al. Radio-immunoscintigraphy of head and neck cancer using 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibody E 48 F(ab’)2. Cancer Res 1992;52:2569-2574
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Braams JW, Pruim J, Nikkels PG, Roodenburg JL, Vaalburg W, Vermey A. Nodal spread of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity detected with PET-tyrosine, MRI and CT. J Nucl Med 1996;37:897-901
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    van den Brekel MWM, Castelijns JA, Stel HV, et al. Occult metastatic neck disease: detection with US and US-guided fine needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1991;178:457-461
  7. ↵
    Chikui T, Yonetsu K, Nakamura T. Multivariate analysis of sonographic findings on metastatic cervical lymph nodes: contribution of blood flow features revealed by power Doppler sonography in predicting metastasis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:561-567
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Vassallo P, Wernecke K, Roos N, Peters PE. Differentiation of benign from malignant superficial lymphadenopathy: the role of high-resolution US. Radiology 1992;183:215-220
    PubMed
  9. Takes RP, Knegt PPM, Manni JJ, et al. Regional metastasis in head and neck squamous cell cancer: the value of ultrasound with USgFNAB revised. Radiology 1996;198:819-823
    PubMed
  10. Righi PD, Kopecky KK, Caldemeyer KS, Ball VA, Weisberger EC, Radpour S. Comparison of ultrasound fine needle aspiration an computed tomography in patients undergoing elective neck dissection. Head Neck 1997;19:604-610
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    van den Brekel MWM, Reitsma LC, Quak JJ, et al. Sonographically guided aspiration cytology of neck nodes for selection of treatment and follow-up in patients with N0 head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1727-1731
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 22, Issue 1
1 Jan 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in the Neck: Radiologic Criteria
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in the Neck: Radiologic Criteria
Jonas A. Castelijns, Michiel W. M. van den Brekel
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2001, 22 (1) 3-4;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in the Neck: Radiologic Criteria
Jonas A. Castelijns, Michiel W. M. van den Brekel
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2001, 22 (1) 3-4;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Comparison between computed tomography and clinical evaluation in tumour/node stage and follow-up of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • The No Surprises Act: What Neuroradiologists Should Know
  • Call to Action: Women in Neuroradiology’s Group (WINNERS)—Is There a Need?
  • The Z-Shift: A Need for Quality Management System Level Testing and Standardization in Neuroimaging Pipelines
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire