Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Role of multidetector computed tomography in assessment of laryngeal cancer: experiences from 31 cases

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • معلومة اضافية
    • بيانات النشر:
      AMALTEA Medical Publishing House, 2024.
    • الموضوع:
      2024
    • نبذة مختصرة :
      Aims. To compare the efficacy of computed tomography from endoscopic examination in diagnosing and staging laryngeal carcinoma. Methods. From February 2019 to July 2020, we conducted a retrospective study on patients with laryngeal carcinoma. After receiving a clinical diagnosis of laryngeal masses, patients underwent indirect laryngoscopy evaluation before being referred for computed tomography (CT) scans. A postimaging biopsy was undertaken via direct laryngoscopy. Imaging features of the tumor, such as size, level of invasion, and tumor staging, were analyzed. Results. The mean age was 61±11, with 90% of male patients. The risk of laryngeal cancer for those patients who were active smokers (93.5%) and alcohol consumers (67.7%). The most common symptom was hoarseness (93.5%). In CT image, more than half of the cancers were carcinoma of the glottis (29%) and two regions, supraglottis and glottis (22.6%), while the less common cancers were the subglottic (3.2%) and all three regions (9.7%) carcinoma, especially true vocal cord (67.7%) is the most common site starting carcinoma. The percentage of tumor spreading to paraglottic space and pre-epiglottic space was 50% and 30.6%, respectively. The most common stage of laryngeal cancer in CT was the T3 stage (35.5%). Compared to laryngoscopy, there is a weak agreement (Kappa=0.518) in staging in laryngeal cancer in CT. Conclusion. MDCT is better in staging of laryngeal cancer in the T3 and T4 stages as compared to laryngoscopy.
    • ISSN:
      2069-6108
      1842-8258
    • الرقم المعرف:
      10.37897/rjmp.2024.2.12
    • الرقم المعرف:
      edsair.doi.dedup.....e32598fe826cbe19fe2bc492590c52ad