Authors
1
department of radiology , Mosul collage of medicine , Mosul university, Mosul , Iraq
2
department of radiology,collage of medicine, Mustansiriyah university ,Baghdad ,Iraq
,
Document Type : Research Paper
Abstract
Background:Evaluation of abdominal & pelvic lymph nodes on computed tomography is a ultimate task in radiological training in oncological reporting. Node –RADS1.0 was used to form a complete framework for radiological reporting of lymph nodes.
Aim of the study: intended to assess lymph nodes metastasis among a sample of Iraqi patients with primary abdominopelvic tumors based on Node–RADS version 1.0 in comparison with histopathological results.
Patients &Methods:This prospective comparative study was conducted at the CT unit of Oncology Teaching Hospital in the Baghdad Medical City for period from March 2021 to December 2022. The study sample included (70) patients with abdomen/ pelvic malignancies, CT scan study was done , both unenhanced & contrast enhanced CT studies were included.The patients were followed up after surgery for the result of their histopathological examination to be compared with the Node-RADS score .
Results:The study shows that Node-RADS v 1.0 category 2 was the most one registered among 18 (25.7%) of the participants, followed by 4 among 15 (21.4%), category 3 among 13 (18.6(% participants and category 1 and 5 among 12(17.1%) of the participants respectively.
Regarded histopathology there was equal percentage (50.0%) of the positive and negative result,there was a significant association between the histopathological finding with the Node-RADS results, 81.5% of positive histopathology had Node-RADS category (4 and 5) and this finding found to be significant as p value was less than 0.05. The sensitivity of the Node-RADS test compares with the gold standard test (Histopathology) found to be 81.5% and the specificity of the Node-RADS was 69.8%.
Conclusions:The Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS) standardizes reporting of cancer contribution of lymph nodes on CT imaging.There is high sensitivity & good specificity of Node-RADS in comparison to histopathological study.
Key words: Node-RADs, lymph node , colorectal cancer ,abdomen & pelvic malignancy.
- Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C ,editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours.John Wiley & Sons ;2017 Jan 17.
- Ryu KH, Lee KH, Ryu J,Baek HJ, Kim SJ, Jung HK,Kim SM.Cervical Lymph Node Imaging Reporting and Data System for ultrasound of cervical lymphadenopathy: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2016; 206:1286–91.
- Kumar I ,Sharma1 S ,Prakash A ,Aggarwal P ,Shukla1 R C, & Verma CT-Based Definition and Structured Reporting of Abdominal Lymph Node Stations. Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging . 2022; 6:62–70.
- Hoang JK, Vanka J, Ludwig BJ,Glastonbury CM. Evaluation of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck cancer with CT and MRI: tips, traps, and a systematic approach. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2013; 200: W17–25.
- Chung MS, Choi YJ, Kim SO ,Lee YS, Hong JY,Lee JH, Baek JH. A scoring system for prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. American Journal of Neuroradiology.2019;40:1049–54.
- Ryu KH, Lee KH, Ryu J, Baek HJ ,Kim SJ ,Jung HK, Kim SM . Cervical Lymph Node Imaging Reporting and Data System for ultrasound of cervical lymphadenopathy: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2016; 206: 1286–91.
- Ying L, Hou Y, Zheng HM, Lin X, Xie ZL, Hu YP.Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant superficial lymph nodes: ameta-analysis. European journal of radiology 2012; 81:2576–84.
- Ghajarzadeh M, Mohammadifar M, Azarkhish K, Emami-Razavi SH. Sono-elastography for differentiating benign and malignant cervical lymph nodes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of preventive medicine . 2014; 5:1521–28.
- Beets-Tan RG .Pretreatment MRI of lymph nodes in rectal cancer: an opinion-based review. Colorectal Disease.2013;15:781–84.
- Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R ,Shankar L, Therasse P, Gwyther S, Eisenhauer EA.Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. European journal of Cancer.2009; 45:261–67.
- Thoeny HC, Barbieri S, Froehlich JM, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Functional and targeted lymph node imaging in prostate cancer: current status and future challenges. Radiology.2017 ;285:728–43.
- Elsholtz F H , Asbach p , Haas M , Becker M, Beets-Tan R G , Thoeny H C, Padhani A R & Hamm B. Introducing the Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS): a concept for standardized assessment of lymph nodes in cancer .European Radiology 2021; 31:6116–24.
- Colombo N, Sessa C, Bois AD, et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease [published online ahead of print, 2019 May 2]. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;ijgc-2019-000308.
- Fabel M, Wulff A, Heckel F, et al. Clinical lymph node staging--influence of slice thickness and reconstruction kernel on volumetry and RECIST measurements. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3124-30.
- Li X, Yin Y, Sheng X, et al. Distribution pattern of lymph node metastases and its implication in individualized radiotherapeutic clinical target volume delineation of regional lymph nodes in patients with stage IA to IIA cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10 :40. Published 2015 Feb 15.
Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D, et al. A Randomized Trial of Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Neoplasms. N Engl J Med.2019;380:822-32.
)
