The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Tumor Volume in Pharyngolaryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comparison at CT, MR Imaging, and FDG PET and Validation with Surgical Specimen
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma and to validate results with the macroscopic surgical specimen when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with stages II-IV squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy or chemotherapy and radiation therapy (n = 20) or with total laryngectomy (n = 9) were enrolled. Ten patients had oropharyngeal, 13 had laryngeal, and six had hypopharyngeal tumors. CT, MR imaging, and PET were performed with patients immobilized in a customized thermoplastic mask, and images were coregistered. GTVs obtained with the three modalities were compared quantitatively and qualitatively. If patients underwent total laryngectomy, images were validated with the surgical specimen after three-dimensional coregistration. The effect of each modality was estimated with linear mixed-effects models. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made with the Bonferonni or Sidak method. RESULTS: For oropharyngeal tumors and for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal tumors, no significant difference (P >.99) was observed between average GTVs delineated at CT (32.0 and 21.4 cm(3), respectively) or MR imaging (27.9 and 21.4 cm(3), respectively), whereas average GTVs at PET were smaller (20.3 [P </=.10] and 16.4 cm(3) [P </=.01], respectively). GTVs from surgical specimens were significantly smaller (12.6 cm(3), P </=.06). In nine patients for whom a surgical specimen was available, no modality adequately depicted superficial tumor extension; this was due to limitations in spatial resolution. In addition, false-positive results were seen for cartilage, extralaryngeal, and preepiglottic extensions. CONCLUSION: Compared with GTVs at CT and MR imaging, GTVs at FDG PET were smaller. In nine patients for whom a surgical specimen was available, PET was found to be the most accurate modality. However, no modality managed to depict superficial tumor extension.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Lee, A. W., Ng, W. T., Pan, J. J., Poh, S. S., Ahn, Y. C., AlHussain, H., Corry, J., Grau, C., Grégoire, V., Harrington, K. J., et al. (2018) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.032 · Cited by 367
Self-citationIlyas, H., Mikhaeel, N. G., Dunn, J. T., Rahman, F., Møller, H., Smith, D., & Barrington, S. F. (2018) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-018-3953-z · Cited by 150
Rios Velazquez, E., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Gu, Y., Goldgof, D. B., De Ruysscher, D., Dekker, A., Korn, R., Gillies, R. J., & Lambin, P. (2012) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2012.09.023 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Daisne, J.-F., Duprez, T., Weynand, B., Lonneux, M., Hamoir, M., Reychler, H., & Grégoire, V.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 233
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-100
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2061565656
- Cited by
- 677
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tumor Volume in Pharyngolaryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comparison at CT, MR Imaging, and FDG PET and Validation with Surgical Specimen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2331030660
- The paper
- Daisne, J.-F., Duprez, T., Weynand, B., Lonneux, M., Hamoir, M., Reychler, H., & Grégoire, V. (2004). Tumor Volume in Pharyngolaryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comparison at CT, MR Imaging, and FDG PET and Validation with Surgical Specimen. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331030660
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
