Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

EditorialEDITORIALS

Building a Better Mousetrap: The Diagnosis of Metastatic Cervical Adenopathy

Jane L. Weissman
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2003, 24 (3) 297;
Jane L. Weissman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Errata - May 01, 2003

Technologic limitations are sometimes a boon. Whether in medicine or in other areas of science, limitations prompt a search for new and improved solutions.

In surgical oncology, once techniques for removal of tumor-bearing cervical lymph nodes became part of standard medical practice, it was important to identify those nodes preoperatively. Clever minds have devised many approaches, but the large number of methods currently used to find cancer in lymph nodes testifies eloquently to how unsatisfactory the available options are. These methods can be divided into those that evaluate the anatomic aspects of nodes and those that assess the physiological behavior of tissue. Clinical palpation, for example, relies on anatomic features. Palpation uses no special equipment but does require extensive training and experience and still yields a discouragingly low accuracy.

CT and MR imaging have improved on that rather dismal statistic by applying a variety of anatomic criteria (size, shape, attenuation, originial intensity number) to differentiate normal from abnormal nodes. The inevitable tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity has limited the CT and MR imaging identification of tumor in cervical lymph nodes. If, for example, the cutoff for “normal” nodes is 0.5 cm, very few tumor-bearing nodes will be missed but many normal nodes will be misidentified as abnormal. Therefore, most radiologists use a higher cutoff. Sonography is subject to many of the limitations that plague CT and MR imaging. Color Doppler sonography evaluates the “angioarchitecture” of lymph nodes but is not widely used in this country.

Sentinel node imaging provides a “road map” of the lymphatic drainage from a tumor but no information regarding the presence or absence of tumor in those nodes. The technique entails injecting technetium-labeled sulfur colloid particles into and around a tumor. The particles migrate from the tumor into the draining lymphatics. Scintiphotos provide a map of the lymphatic drainage from the tumor, nothing more. Although this may be of use in identifying aberrant drainage pathways that would necessitate modifications of a planned neck dissection, sentinel node imaging provides no information regarding where or even whether tumor is present in nodes.

Elsewhere in the body, lymphangiography and lymphoscintigraphy have provided a combination of anatomic and physiological information about lymph nodes. Neither has proved especially useful in the neck, and both are invasive and can be technically difficult. MR imaging performed after the administration of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles, another hybrid of anatomic and physiological assessment, is still not fully evaluated or widely available. Metabolic (functional, physiological) imaging with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is new and promising. The limited anatomic detail that positron emission tomography provides will likely require correlation with CT or MR imaging to make it widely useful.

So where does this leave us? Radiologists who attempt to diagnose tumor in cervical lymph nodes and surgeons who plan surgery with that information require more sensitive and specific information than is currently available. A new technique is needed. Add to the wish list a technique that simply applies existing equipment and technology to better advantage.

Enter dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. This method, evaluated in the current issue by Fischbein et al, combines the best features of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT with the improved tissue contrast of MR imaging to open up a brave new world. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging has already proved its merit in evaluating primary tumors in a variety of locations (brain, head and neck, breast, cervix, bladder, and prostate, among others) and in cases of metastatic adenopathy.

For reasons that are as yet incompletely understood, the current study found that tumor-bearing lymph nodes handled a contrast bolus differently from non-tumor-bearing nodes. The time to peak enhancement was longer for nodes that contained tumor, the peak was lower, and the washout of contrast material was slower. These distinct differences separate the abnormal nodes from the normal nodes.

Work remains to be done. The pathophysiological underpinnings of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are yet to be elucidated. Understanding the physiology might lead to treatment for tumor-bearing nodes or, even better, to prevention of metastases. A prospective comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and conventional MR imaging should prove interesting, as will the comparison of dynamic MR imaging to fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging seems to be an important new direction that the accurate diagnosis of head and neck metastases will take. The article by Fischbein et al shows us that the time to start moving in that direction is now.

  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 3
1 Mar 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Building a Better Mousetrap: The Diagnosis of Metastatic Cervical Adenopathy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Jane L. Weissman
Building a Better Mousetrap: The Diagnosis of Metastatic Cervical Adenopathy
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 297;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Building a Better Mousetrap: The Diagnosis of Metastatic Cervical Adenopathy
Jane L. Weissman
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 297;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Errata
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire