ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) is conventionally treated by surgical resection, and positive surgical margins strongly increase local recurrence and decrease survival. This study aimed to evaluate whether a Three-Dimensional Segmentation (3DS) image of OSCC confers advantage over Multiplanar Reconstruction (MPR) of OSCC using images of computed tomography scan in surgical planning of tumor resection. Methods: Twenty-six patients with locally advanced OSCC had tumor morphology and dimensions evaluated by MPR images, 3DS images, and Surgical Pathology Specimen (SPS) analyses (gold standard). OSCC resection was performed with curative intent using only MPR images. Results: OSCC morphology was more accurately assessed by 3DS than by MPR images. Similar OSCC volumes and dimensions were obtained when MPR images, 3DS images and SPS measurements were considered. Nevertheless, there was a strong correlation between the OSCC longest axis measured by 3DS and SPS analyses (ICC = 0.82; 95% CI 0.59-0.92), whereas only a moderate correlation was observed between the longest axis of OSCC measured by MPR images and SPS analyses (ICC = 0.51; 95% CI 0.09-0.78). Taking only SPS with positive margins into account, MPR images and 3DS images underestimated the tumor's longest axis in eight out of 11 (72.7%) and 5 out of the 11 (45.5%) cases, respectively. Conclusion: Our data present preliminary evidence that 3DS model represents a useful tool for surgical planning of OSCC resection, but confirmation in a larger cohort of patients is required. Level of evidence: Laboratory study.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images in the preoperative evaluation of advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) was performed on 61 patients with advanced gastric cancer, and the coronal and sagittal multiplanar images reconstructed from the transaxial data. The combined axial and MPR images were compared to the axial images alone to determine if the image quality and diagnostic accuracy had been improved. RESULTS: The observed image quality of the combined axial and MPR images, graded relative to the axial image alone, was fair in 22 (36.1%), good in 27 (44.2%), and excellent in 12 cases (19.7%). For the T staging, the diagnostic accuracy of combining the axial and MPR images (75.4%) was higher than that of the axial image alone (70.7%). However, there was no significant difference in the accuracies between the two methods (McNeamar test, P>0.05). For specific regions, the diagnostic accuracies of combining the axial and MPR images and the axial image alone were as follows: 90.2, and 73.8% with antral lesser curvature involvement; 93.4, and 75.4% with antral greater curvature involvement; 83.6, and 73.8% with gastric angle involvement; 96.7, and 88.5% with liver left lobe invasion; 90.2, and 83.6% with pancreas head invasion and 96.7, and 85.2% with colon or mesocolon invasion, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combining the axial and MPR images does not improve the depiction of the T staging compared to the axial image alone in advanced gastric cancer. However, combining the axial and MPR images improved the imaging quality and diagnostic accuracy of specific regions where the delineation of the conventional axial image was insufficient. Therefore, combining the axial and MPR images may be very useful in the preoperative evaluation of advanced gastric cancers.