The Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Differentiating Metastatic Lymph Nodes of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Head and Neck Cancers V.2.2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/head-and-neck.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2018. To view the most recent and complete version of the guidelines, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, NCCN®, NCCN Guidelines®, and all other NCCN content that are trademarks owned by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc, see www.nccn.org
2. 2.↵
   2. Curtin HD,
   3. Ishwaran H,
   4. Mancuso AA, et al

   . Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases. Radiology 1998;207:123–30 doi:10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530307 pmid:9530307

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. van den Brekel MW,
   3. Castelijns JA,
   4. Snow GB

   . Detection of lymph node metastases in the neck: radiologic criteria. Radiology 1994;192:617–18 doi:10.1148/radiology.192.3.8058923 pmid:8058923

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Barchetti F,
   3. Pranno N,
   4. Giraldi G, et al

   . The role of 3 Tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of benign versus malignant cervical lymph nodes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:532095 doi:10.1155/2014/532095 pmid:25003115

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. de Bondt RB,
   3. Hoeberigs MC,
   4. Nelemans PJ, et al

   . Diagnostic accuracy and additional value of diffusion-weighted imaging for discrimination of malignant cervical lymph nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Neuroradiology 2009;51:183–92 doi:10.1007/s00234-008-0487-2 pmid:19137282

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Goel V,
   3. Parihar PS,
   4. Parihar A, et al

   . Accuracy of MRI in prediction of tumour thickness and nodal stage in oral tongue and gingivobuccal cancer with clinical correlation and staging. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:Tc01–05 doi:10.7860/JCDR/2016/17411 pmid:27504375

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Lee MC,
   3. Tsai HY,
   4. Chuang KS, et al

   . Prediction of nodal metastasis in head and neck cancer using a 3T MRI ADC map. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:864–69 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3281 pmid:22997167

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Si J,
   3. Huang S,
   4. Shi H, et al

   . Usefulness of 3T diffusion-weighted MRI for discrimination of reactive and metastatic cervical lymph nodes in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: a pilot study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43:20130202 doi:10.1259/dmfr.20130202 pmid:24408820

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Stecco A,
   3. Buemi F,
   4. Cassarà A, et al

   . Comparison of retrospective PET and MRI-DWI (PET/MRI-DWI) image fusion with PET/CT and MRI-DWI in detection of cervical and endometrial cancer lymph node metastases. Radiol Med 2016;121:537–45 doi:10.1007/s11547-016-0626-5 pmid:27033474

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Vandecaveye V,
    3. De Keyzer F,
    4. Vander Poorten V, et al

    . Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for nodal staging. Radiology 2009;251:134–46 doi:10.1148/radiol.2511080128 pmid:19251938

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Wendl CM,
    3. Müller S,
    4. Eiglsperger J, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging in oral squamous cell carcinoma using 3 Tesla MRI: is there a chance for preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant lymph nodes in daily clinical routine? Acta Radiol 2016;57:939–46 doi:10.1177/0284185115609365 pmid:26454065

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Zhong J,
    3. Lu Z,
    4. Xu L, et al

    . The diagnostic value of cervical lymph node metastasis in head and neck squamous carcinoma by using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography perfusion. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:260859 doi:10.1155/2014/260859 pmid:25050333

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Liang L,
    3. Luo X,
    4. Lian Z, et al

    . Lymph node metastasis in head and neck squamous carcinoma: efficacy of intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging for the differential diagnosis. Eur J Radiol 2017;90:159–65 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.039 pmid:28583628

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Lim HK,
    3. Lee JH,
    4. Baek HJ, et al

    . Is diffusion-weighted MRI useful for differentiation of small non-necrotic cervical lymph nodes in patients with head and neck malignancies? Korean J Radiol 2014;15:810–16 doi:10.3348/kjr.2014.15.6.810 pmid:25469094

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–94 pmid:19622512

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Park SH

    . Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5 pmid:26798211

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Kim KW,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part I: general guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175–87 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1175 pmid:26576106

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Kim KW,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part II: statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188–96 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 pmid:26576107

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG

    . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58 doi:10.1002/sim.1186 pmid:12111919

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG,
    4. Deeks JJ, et al

    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 pmid:12958120

    FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Devillé WL,
    3. Buntinx F,
    4. Bouter LM, et al

    . Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 pmid:12097142

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 pmid:16085191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Koh DM,
    3. Collins DJ

    . Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1622–35 doi:10.2214/AJR.06.1403 pmid:17515386

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Deeks JJ BP,
    3. Gatsonis C

    , eds. 2013 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed January 8, 2017