Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI and US in detecting vascular involvement in patients with head and neck tumours and metastasis: systematic review and meta-analysis
Author Block: U. B. Abdullaeva1, B. Pape2, J. Hirvonen3; 1Tashkent/UZ, 2Turku, Vaasa/FI, 3Tampere/FI
Purpose: To review the diagnostic performance of MRI, CT and US for detecting vascular invasion in head and neck primary tumours or metastases, using histopathology or surgical findings as the reference standard.
Methods or Background: This review was registered in Prospero (CRD42024584016). We searched PubMed and Embase for studies in English, published from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.2024, that used CT, MRI or ultrasound to assess vascular involvement in head and neck primary tumours or metastases, confirmed by histology or surgery and provided data to calculate diagnostic accuracy. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, with heterogeneity assessed using Cochran’s Q test.
Results or Findings: In the systematic review, we included 28 studies with 1687 patients (mean age 57.2): 17 retrospective, seven prospective, one mixed, and the rest unspecified. The meta-analysis included 19 studies (1041 patients), while nine studies (646 patients) were analysed qualitatively.
Overall diagnostic accuracy was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81–0.91). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.63 (0.48–0.75), 0.81 (0.73–0.87), 0.60 (0.52–0.68), and 0.90 (0.78–0.96), respectively. US performed best (accuracy 0.95, sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.93, NPV 0.96, PPV 0.73), MRI showed intermediate results, and CT the lowest. Moderation effect for accuracy was significant (p = 0.041), with US outperforming CT (p = 0.023). Significant heterogeneity was found for sensitivity (Q = 57.81), specificity (Q = 109.01), NPV (Q = 79.42), and accuracy (Q = 170.25) (all p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: US is the most effective and precise modality, outperforming MRI and CT, though MRI is superior to CT. Overall modest sensitivity suggests the possibility of false negative findings. Significant heterogeneity requires integration of imaging findings with intraoperative validation.
Limitations: The study is largely retrospective, with sampling bias, incomplete data, and significant heterogeneity.
Funding for this study: No funding was received for this study.
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Not applicable
Ethics committee - additional information: