Iodine density of lymphoma, metastatic SCCA, and normal cervical lymph nodes: Based on DLSCT

V. Mingkwansook, Urusaya Wangprasertkul, Warit Tarathipmon, Arvemas Watcharakorn
{"title":"Iodine density of lymphoma, metastatic SCCA, and normal cervical lymph nodes: Based on DLSCT","authors":"V. Mingkwansook, Urusaya Wangprasertkul, Warit Tarathipmon, Arvemas Watcharakorn","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.146149.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To compare iodine density (ID) and contrast-enhanced attenuation value (CEAV) from dual-layer spectral computed tomography (DLSCT) scans of lymphomatous, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA), and normal cervical lymph nodes. Methods Data including ID and CEAV were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent DLSCT of the neck between January 2020 and August 2023. Results from each group (lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal) were compared and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and receiver operating characteristic curve. Results 129 cervical lymph nodes were collected from patients who met the inclusion criteria (50, 41, and 38 nodes from the lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal group, respectively). The mean ID of lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal nodes was 1.01±0.27, 1.36±0.28, and 1.45±0.29 mg/mL, respectively. Comparing lymphomatous nodes with metastatic SCCA nodes, the lymphomatous nodes had significantly lower values of ID (p<0.002) and CEAV (p<0.001). Similarly, when comparing lymphomatous nodes with normal nodes, the lymphomatous nodes had significantly lower values of ID (p<0.001) and CEAV (p<0.001). The optimal ID cut-off value for distinguishing between lymphomatous and metastatic SCCA nodes was 1.175 mg/ml (specificity of 84.2%, sensitivity 77.8%, AUC 0.788, P = 0.003). The optimal CEAV cut-off value was 77.5 HU (specificity 88.9%, sensitivity 78.9%, AUC 0.851, P<0.001). Conclusions The ID and CEAV measurements from DLSCT were significantly different between lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal lymph nodes. These findings indicate that DLSCT can be used to distinguish between these conditions in the diagnosis of cervical lymph nodes.","PeriodicalId":504605,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146149.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To compare iodine density (ID) and contrast-enhanced attenuation value (CEAV) from dual-layer spectral computed tomography (DLSCT) scans of lymphomatous, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA), and normal cervical lymph nodes. Methods Data including ID and CEAV were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent DLSCT of the neck between January 2020 and August 2023. Results from each group (lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal) were compared and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and receiver operating characteristic curve. Results 129 cervical lymph nodes were collected from patients who met the inclusion criteria (50, 41, and 38 nodes from the lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal group, respectively). The mean ID of lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal nodes was 1.01±0.27, 1.36±0.28, and 1.45±0.29 mg/mL, respectively. Comparing lymphomatous nodes with metastatic SCCA nodes, the lymphomatous nodes had significantly lower values of ID (p<0.002) and CEAV (p<0.001). Similarly, when comparing lymphomatous nodes with normal nodes, the lymphomatous nodes had significantly lower values of ID (p<0.001) and CEAV (p<0.001). The optimal ID cut-off value for distinguishing between lymphomatous and metastatic SCCA nodes was 1.175 mg/ml (specificity of 84.2%, sensitivity 77.8%, AUC 0.788, P = 0.003). The optimal CEAV cut-off value was 77.5 HU (specificity 88.9%, sensitivity 78.9%, AUC 0.851, P<0.001). Conclusions The ID and CEAV measurements from DLSCT were significantly different between lymphomatous, metastatic SCCA, and normal lymph nodes. These findings indicate that DLSCT can be used to distinguish between these conditions in the diagnosis of cervical lymph nodes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
淋巴瘤、转移性 SCCA 和正常宫颈淋巴结的碘密度:基于 DLSCT
目的 比较淋巴瘤、转移性鳞状细胞癌(SCCA)和正常颈淋巴结的双层频谱计算机断层扫描(DLSCT)的碘密度(ID)和对比增强衰减值(CEAV)。方法 回顾性收集 2020 年 1 月至 2023 年 8 月期间接受颈部 DLSCT 的患者的数据,包括 ID 和 CEAV。采用单因素方差分析和接收者操作特征曲线对各组(淋巴瘤、转移性 SCCA 和正常)的结果进行比较和分析。结果 从符合纳入标准的患者中收集了 129 个宫颈淋巴结(淋巴瘤组、转移性 SCCA 组和正常组分别有 50、41 和 38 个淋巴结)。淋巴瘤结节、转移性 SCCA 结节和正常结节的平均 ID 分别为 1.01±0.27、1.36±0.28 和 1.45±0.29 mg/mL。淋巴瘤结节与转移性 SCCA 结节相比,淋巴瘤结节的 ID 值(p<0.002)和 CEAV 值(p<0.001)明显较低。同样,淋巴瘤结节与正常结节相比,淋巴瘤结节的ID值(p<0.001)和CEAV值(p<0.001)也明显较低。区分淋巴瘤结节和转移性 SCCA 结节的最佳 ID 临界值为 1.175 mg/ml(特异性 84.2%,灵敏度 77.8%,AUC 0.788,P = 0.003)。最佳的 CEAV 临界值为 77.5 HU(特异性 88.9%,敏感性 78.9%,AUC 0.851,P<0.001)。结论 DLSCT的ID和CEAV测量值在淋巴瘤、转移性SCCA和正常淋巴结之间存在显著差异。这些研究结果表明,在诊断颈淋巴结时,DLSCT 可用来区分这些情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study The Nexus of Climate Change, Food Insecurity, and Conflict in Somalia: A Comprehensive Analysis of Multifaceted Challenges and Resilience Strategies StackbarExtended: a user-friendly stacked bar-plot representation incorporating phylogenetic information and microbiota differential abundance analysis Trends of machine learning for dental caries research in Southeast Asia: insights from a bibliometric analysis Case Report: Localized retinal ischemia revealing an antiphospholipids syndrome: A case report and review of the literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1