MRI versus CT for detecting cartilage invasion in patients with laryngeal and hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

Publication date

2016-04-06

Authors

Wegner, Inge
Hooft, L.ISNI 0000000393460235
Reitsma, Johannes J BISNI 0000000389855461
Pameijer, Frank AISNI 0000000087442565
de Bree, RemcoORCID 0000-0001-7128-5814ISNI 0000000387040744
Stegeman, IngeORCID 0000-0001-5154-7178ISNI 0000000423219064

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative conventional MRI and conventional CT for detecting cartilage invasion in patients with laryngeal and hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, who have not previously undergone surgery, using histopathology as the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the methodological quality of the study, study population and technical characteristics of the index test and reference test. Therefore, we will assess whether heterogeneity in sensitivity and/or specificity can be related to: methodological quality rating for the four QUADAS-2 domains (low risk of bias versus high risk of bias versus unclear risk of bias); previous radiotherapeutic treatment (yes versus no); sublocation distribution (glottic versus supraglottic versus subglottic versus hypopharyngeal); type of cartilage assessed (thyroid versus cricoid versus arytenoid); T-classification distribution; N-classification distribution; magnetic field strength used (1.5 Tesla versus 3.0 Tesla); slice thickness imaging; slice thickness pathology; diagnostic criteria used/differences in (qualitative) thresholds.

Keywords

General Medicine, Pharmacology (medical)

Citation

Wegner, I, Hooft, L, Reitsma, J B, Pameijer, F A, de Bree, R & Stegeman, I 2016, 'MRI versus CT for detecting cartilage invasion in patients with laryngeal and hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , vol. 2016, no. 4, CD012115. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012115