Single-photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of mandibular invasion caused by oral cancers: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2017.04.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective This review aimed at assessing the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in the diagnosis of mandibular invasion by oral cancers. Methods Five databases were searched electronically on August 5, 2016. The reference lists of included studies were hand searched. Quality assessment was performed by two reviewers in duplicate with tools suggested by Cochrane’s handbook. Furthermore, the data extraction of included studies was delivered. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 11.0. Results Ten studies with 460 participants were included. One study had a low risk of bias, and two studies had a high risk of bias. The remaining seven studies had an unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis results showed that SPECT had a pooled sensitivity of 0.99 [95% confidence interval=0.87-1.00]. Sensitivity was 0.99 on Q* point. The specificity of 0.61 and the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) were 0.93 [95% confidence interval=0.90-0.95]. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.555. The negative likelihood ratio was 0.015. The diagnostic odd ratio was 5.115. Conclusion SPECT had high sensitivity, which became suitable for excluding bone invasion by oral cancers. However, its specificity was relatively low, indicating its limited capability in confirming diagnosis. Therefore, sur-geons should perform this method under certain conditions.

Key words: single-photon emission computed tomography, mouth neoplasm, mandible, diagnosis, Meta-analysis

CLC Number:

R445

Xiaonian Wang, Fenjuan Luo, Xianghe Qiao, Wenbin Yang, Jie Lin, Chunjie Li. Single-photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of mandibular invasion caused by oral cancers: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 35(4): 413-418.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab 1

Tab 2

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

References 19

[1]	Greene FL, Sobin LH.The staging of cancer: a retrospective and prospective appraisal[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2008, 58(3):180-190.
[2]	Tei K, Totsuka Y, Iizuka T, et al.Marginal resection for carcinoma of the mandibular alveolus and gingiva where radiologically detected bone defects do not extend beyond the mandibular canal[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2004, 62(7):834-839.
[3]	Van Cann EM, Koole R, Oyen WJ, et al.Assessment of mandibular invasion of squamous cell carcinoma by various modes of imaging: constructing a diagnostic algorithm[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 37(6):535-541.
[4]	Gong Y, Wang Q, Dong L, et al.Different imaging techni-ques for the detection of pelvic lymph nodes metastasis from gynecological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(8):14107-14125.
[5]	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accu-racy studies[J]. Ann Int Med, 2011, 155(8):529-536.
[6]	Acton CH, Layt C, Gwynne R, et al.Investigative modalities of mandibular invasion by squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Laryngoscope, 2000, 110(12):2050-2055.
[7]	Curran AJ, Toner M, Quinn A, et al.Mandibular invasion diagnosed by SPECT[J]. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 1996, 21(6):542-545.
[8]	Dreiseidler T, Alarabi N, Ritter L, et al.A comparison of multislice computerized tomography, cone-beam compu-terized tomography, and single photon emission computerized tomography for the assessment of bone invasion by oral malignancies[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2011, 112(3):367-374.
[9]	段青云, 贾暮云, 张雄, 等. CT和SPECT对下牙龈癌侵犯下颌骨诊断价值的比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2008, 17(5):471-474.
	Duan QY, Jia MY, Zhang X, et al.A comparison between CT and SPECT in detecting mandibular invasion by lower gingival squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Shanghai J Stomatol, 2008, 17(5):471-474.
[10]	Goerres GW, Schmid DT, Schuknecht B, et al.Bone inva-sion in patients with oral cavity cancer: comparison of con-ventional CT with PET/CT and SPECT/CT[J]. Radiology, 2005, 237(1):281-287.
[11]	Kushraj T, Chatra L, Shenai P, et al.Bone invasion in oral cancer patients: a comparison between Orthopantamograph, conventional computed tomography, and single positron emission computed tomography[J]. J Cancer Res Ther, 2011, 7(4):438-441.
[12]	Rajesh A, Khan A, Kendall C, et al.Can magnetic resonance imaging replace single photon computed tomography and computed tomography in detecting bony invasion in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 46(1):11-14.
[13]	Schimming R, Juengling FD, Lauer G, et al.Computer-aided 3-D 99mTc-DPD-SPECT reconstruction to assess mandi-bular invasion by intraoral squamous cell carcinoma: diag-nostic improvement or not[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2000, 28(6):325-330.
[14]	Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Satoh K, et al.Dual-isotope SPECT using 99mTc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate and 201Tl-chloride to assess mandibular invasion by intraoral squamous cell carcinoma[J]. J Nucl Med, 2002, 43(11):1464-1468.
[15]	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A.Cancer statistics, 2016[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(1):7-30.
[16]	Li C, Lin J, Men Y, et al.Does medullary versus cortical invasion of the mandible affect prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 75(2):403-415.
[17]	Li C, Sheng S, Men Y, et al. Emission computed tomogra-phy for the diagnosis of mandibular invasion by head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015, 73(9):1875.e1-1875.e11.
[18]	Li C, Yang W, Men Y, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of mandibular involvement from head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11):e112267.
[19]	Li C, Men Y, Yang W, et al.Computed tomography for the diagnosis of mandibular invasion caused by head and neck cancer: a systematic review comparing contrast-enhanced and plain computed tomography[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 72(8):1601-1615.

研究	国家	研究类型	N (男/女)	年龄/岁	肿瘤位置	骨侵犯数量
Acton等^[6]	澳大利亚	R	67（47/20）	61.8	口底、牙龈、RT	5
Curran等^[7]	爱尔兰	R	29（21/8）	67（42~84）	口腔、口咽	9
Dreiseidler等^[8]	德国	P	77（52/25）	61.04（32~81）	口腔	48
段青云等^[9]	中国	R	21（18/3）	53.19（42~73）	牙龈	20
Goerres等^[10]	瑞士	P	34（17/17）	64.2（46~84.6）	牙龈、RT	12
Kushraj等^[11]	印度	P	15	-	口腔	8
Rajesh等^[12]	英国	R	23	-	口腔	19
Schimming等^[13]	德国	P	88（73/15）	51.5（37~81）	舌、牙龈、口底、RT	40
Van Cann等^[3]	荷兰	P	67（42/25）	63（43~84）	口底、牙龈、颊、RT	43
Yamamoto等^[14]	日本	P	39（21/18）	63.2（34~90）	颊、口底、舌、牙龈	13

研究	患者纳入			SPECT	金标准		研究时限			偏倚风险	适用性
研究	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	偏倚风险	适用性
Acton等^[6]	U	Y	U	Y	Y	U	U	Y	Y	B	H
Curran等^[7]	Y	Y	U	U	Y	U	U	Y	N	C	H
Dreiseidler等^[8]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A	H
段青云等^[9]	U	Y	U	U	Y	U	U	Y	Y	B	H
Goerres等^[10]	Y	Y	U	Y	Y	U	Y	Y	Y	B	H
Kushraj等^[11]	U	Y	U	U	Y	U	U	Y	Y	B	H
Rajesh等^[12]	U	Y	U	Y	Y	U	U	Y	Y	B	H
Schimming等^[13]	U	Y	U	Y	Y	U	N	Y	Y	C	H
Van Cann等^[3]	Y	Y	U	Y	Y	U	Y	Y	Y	B	H
Yamamoto等^[14]	U	Y	U	Y	Y	U	Y	Y	Y	B	H