Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 55537

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : TC05 - TC09 Full Version

CT Perfusion in Evaluation of Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Head and Neck Malignancies: A Cross-sectional Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
Rekha, MK Mittal

1. Doctor, Department of Radiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India. 2. Professor and Consultant, Department of Radiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Rekha,
Doctor, Department of Radiology, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi, India.


Introduction: Though, many cross-sectional modalities are available for evaluation of cervical lymph node metastasis but their results are highly variable. There is paucity of the literature in India, regarding lymph nodal assessment using Computed Tomography (CT) perfusion in head and neck malignancies even though, there is high incidence of oral cancer in India.

Aim: To assess the role of Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in evaluation of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck malignancies, by using CT perfusion parameters as compared to histopathology.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis in collaboration with the Department of Surgery and Pathology at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India, from October 2017 to April 2019. The study included 30 newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients, with 46 nodes planned for surgical neck dissection. Computed tomography scan of neck was acquired using Siemens Somatom Definition Flash 256CT scanner. Reconstruction and post processing was performed on workstation and perfusion parameters were obtained to generate the CT perfusion maps. Differentiation between benign and malignant lymph nodes was done, on the basis of CT perfusion parameters such as Blood Flow (BF), Blood Volume (BV), Mean Transit Time (MTT) and Permeability Surface (PS), which were compared with histopathological findings of resected lymph nodes. McNemar’s test was applied for comparison and statistical analysis. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of quantitative parameters were obtained, for the detection of sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPP) and diagnostic accuracy.

Results: Out of 46 nodes, 23 were metastatic and 23 were non metastatic. The average value of BF in metastatic nodes was 174.61±71.76 mL/100g/min, BV was 16.32±11.9 mL/100g, MTT was 4.83±2.54 seconds and PS was 49.3±28.59 mL/100g/min. The average values for non metastatic nodes were: BF 88.06±34.4 mL/100g/min, BV: 9.89±7.63 mL/100g, MTT: 13.11±18.58 seconds and PS: 37.07±29.26 mL/100g/ min. The differences between the parameters like blood flow (p-value <0.0001), blood volume (p-value=0.005) and MTT (p-value=0.002) in malignant and benign nodes were significant. In case of blood flow, sensitivity was 82.61% and diagnostic accuracy was 84.78%. In case of blood volume, sensitivity was 91.30% and diagnostic accuracy was 73.91%. In case of mean transit time, sensitivity was 56.52% and diagnostic accuracy was 73.91%. In case of permeability surface, sensitivity was 91.30% and diagnostic accuracy was 67.39%.

Conclusion: Blood flow and blood volume values were significantly increased in metastatic cervical lymph nodes as compared to non metastatic nodes, whereas MTT was significantly low. Permeability surface showed equivocal results.


Blood flow, Blood volume, Computer tomography, Mean transitive, Permeability surface

Head and neck malignancies are one of the commonly encountered malignancies in Asian subcontinent. Head and neck malignancies include, those arising from oral cavity, larynx, pharynx and salivary gland, of which oral cavity malignancies are the most common (1). In India, approximately 0.2 to 0.25 million new head and neck malignancy patients are diagnosed each year by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), out of which 90 % are squamous cell carcinoma (2),(3),(4). Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma is an invasive malignancy, shows perineural growth and commonly metastasize the cervical lymph nodes (5),(6), and presence of metastatic cervical lymphadenopathy is associated with poor prognosis and reduces the survival rate (7). Hence, early detection of cervical lymph node metastasis is very important step in cancer staging and its management.

The very first step of the nodal staging is to assess the anatomical level of pathological lymph node in patients with known head and neck malignancy. In 1938 Rouviere H, developed classification for cervical lymph nodes, based on anatomic location and drainage area (8). In 1977 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging classifies the lymph nodes into seven levels, Level 1 to Level 7. This is the latest and most accepted classification (9).

Although Ultrasonography (USG) is extensively used, due to its wide availability and cost effectiveness, but alone it cannot precisely characterise the aetiology of cervical lymphadenopathy and it has to be accompanied with Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) to improve sensitivity and specificity (10). Colour Doppler increases diagnostic accuracy of USG but its inconsistent results and poor repeatability decreases its routine usage. Recently, noninvasive USG techniques like sonoelastography has also gained value in differentiating benign versus malignant lymph nodes, but it is not widely used due to its operator dependence and qualitative nature (11).

There are multiple imaging modalities for evaluation of cervical lymph nodes. Commonly used are Ultrasonography (USG) and Computed Tomography (CT) scans. Other modalities are, Doppler, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT). Recently developed imaging techniques that can be used are sonoelastography, CT perfusion, Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography (CE-USG), MR perfusion and diffusion weighted- MRI (12).

Nowadays, Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) is the first line examination for evaluation of head and neck malignancies, because of its accessibility and high reliability. Addition of CT perfusion in the same sitting will further add to value of study (13). Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) is a functional dynamic study, which helps in quantification of the enhancement in tissue and blood at certain time points, following intravenous administration of iodinated contrast. It can obtain multiple quantitative CTP parameters like Blood Flow (BF), Blood Volume (BV), Mean Transit Time (MTT) and Permeability Surface (PS) with a single acquisition (13),(14).

The CTP parameters provide valid information on angiogenic activity induced by metastatic cell invasion of lymph nodes (12). CTP include higher spatial resolution, wider longitudinal coverage by new Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) scanners, more extensive data sampling of large lesions. CT perfusion is a recent addition for the evaluation of lymph nodes and has shown encouraging but variable results in different study (13).

Hence, present study was conducted with the aim to assess the role of CTP in evaluation of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck malignancies by using CT perfusion parameters and compare with histopathology.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis in collaboration with the Department of Surgery and Pathology at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India, from October 2017 to April 2019. Approval of the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC/VMMC/SJH/Thesis/ October/2017-198) was taken for the study and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated by Mcnamer test with the reference from Zhong 2014 (15). Study included 30 untreated patients with squamous cell carcinoma confirmed on biopsy and planned for surgical neck dissection. Total 46 nodes planned for surgical neck dissection.

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: All histopathology proven cases of head and neck malignancies, planned for neck dissection were included in the study. Previously treated patients of head and neck cancer, impaired renal function, pregnant females, nodes smaller than 4 mm in long axis (due to increased partial volume effect error), nodes with macrocalcification and necrosis (because nodes with central necrosis visible in CT examination were directly diagnosed as metastasis and necrosis has almost no vascularity hence very low perfusion) and age less than 18 years were excluded from the study.


Non Contrast Computerised Tomography (NCCT) and CT perfusion was performed with Siemens Somatom Definition Flash 256CT scanner. Non contrast CT scan of the neck was obtained from the base of skull to the thoracic inlet, in 0.6 mm slice thickness (120 KV and 35 mAS) with the help of prior scout imaging. Localisation, morphology, number, attenuation and calcification of lymph nodes were assessed on NCCT, thereafter considering the exclusion criteria, appropriate lymph node was selected as Region Of Interest (ROI).

CT perfusion: CT perfusion scan was planned accordingly, after selection of ROI in 5 mm slice thickness (100 KV and 150 mAS) were obtained, with a total acquisition time of 1.5 sec. Lymph node perfusion scan began with start of intravenous (IV) contrast administration. Total volume of 50-70 mL of iodinated contrast, with 30-40 mL normal saline was injected IV, using a power injector at rate of 4-5 mL/sec via 18-gauge cannula placed in the cubital vein. CTP data was acquired in dynamic mode simultaneous to contrast injection for Z-axis coverage of 10 cm. Manual postprocessing was done, to define arterial input function and venous outflow function for the automated CTP variable. Using automated threshold, based on deconvolution algorithm reconstruction and post processing was done to generate the CT perfusion maps processed on Siemens syngo via advanced multimodality workstation version VB 20. The analysis of CTP maps was done for parameters of BF (mL/100g/min), BV (mL/100g), MTT (sec), and PS (mL/100g/min). Differentiation between benign and malignant lymph node was done based upon higher BF, BV, PS and lower MTT values and compared with the standard values taken as reference of BF in metastatic nodes was 136.4 mL/100g/min, BV was 7.7 mL/100 g, MTT was 4.4 s and PS was 19.4 mL/100 g/min. The average values for non metastatic nodes were: BF was 80.7 mL/100 g/min, BV was 4.7 mL/100 g, MTT was 5.6 s and PS was 12.8 ml/100 g/ min.13.

Histopathology: These patients underwent elective neck dissection and the histopathological results of dissected lymph nodes were obtained, and these results were compared to perfusion parameters in each node.

Statistical Analysis

The data was entered in MS Excel spreadsheet and analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. Categorical variables were presented in number and percentage (%) and continuous variables were presented as mean±SD and median. Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to find out cut-off point of parameters for predicting malignancy. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.


There were 25 men and five women with mean age of 52.67±13.23 years. The mean age of the patients were 52.67±13.23 years. Maximum number of the patients (33.33%) belonged to age group >60 years with only 20.00% patients belonging to ≤40 years age group (Table/Fig 1). Largest number of patients (n=7) had primary site of cancer in buccal mucosa, followed by tonsillar fossa (n=6), aryepiglottic fold (n=4) (Table/Fig 2). More than half of the patients had one lymph nodes were found in 16 (53.33%) patients, two nodes were found in 13 (43.33%) patients and involvement of four lymph nodes was seen in 1 (3.33%) patient (Table/Fig 3). According to distribution of lymph nodes levels, out of 46 lymph nodes most were level IIa (n=18) lymph nodes, followed by level Ib (n=13), level III (n=7) (Table/Fig 4). CT perfusion parameters- BF, BV and MTT showed a significant difference between the benign and malignant lymph nodes (p-value <0.05). However, PS was comparable (p-value=0.06) (Table/Fig 5).

CT perfusion images and corresponding histopathological images of two cases is shown in (Table/Fig 6)a,b and (Table/Fig 7)a-c. The study used receiver operating characteristic curve of quantitative parameters of CTP for prediction of malignancy (histopathology as gold standard), in the detection of sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy. In case of blood flow, sensitivity was 82.61% and diagnostic accuracy was 84.78%. In case of blood volume, sensitivity was 91.30% and diagnostic accuracy was 73.91%. In case of mean transit time, sensitivity was 56.52% and diagnostic accuracy was 73.91%. In case of permeability surface, sensitivity was 91.30% and diagnostic accuracy was 67.39% (Table/Fig 8). The area under the curve for blood flow was maximum (Table/Fig 9),(Table/Fig 10).


Compared to western world, the mean age of diagnosis of oral cancer in developing countries like India (16),(17), is a decade less (65 years vs 52 years). This is primarily related to the high prevalence of the addiction to tobacco chewing among young population, explaining the stable trend in oral cancer incidence in this group (15),(17). In the present study, in maximum number of the patients (23.33%) primary site of cancer was buccal mucosa; in 20.0% patients tonsillar fossa; in 13.33% patients aryepiglottic fold, in 10.0%, hard palate; in 6.67%. The present study results corroborated with the findings of Sharma P et al., who reported that the most common site was buccal mucosa, followed by the retro molar area, floor of mouth, lateral border of tongue, labial mucosa, and palate (18). Histopathologically, in the present study 50% of the lymph nodes were benign and 50% were malignant. In disparity to the study done by Zhong J et al., in which out of the 65 lymph nodes, 48 nodes were proven to be histologically malignant, and 17 nodes were benign in concordance with selection bias depending on the number of cases, we get in our hospital (15).

On CT perfusion, authors found almost double value of BF and BV in metastatic versus non metastatic cervical lymph nodes. There was also a significant decrease in MTT value in metastatic lymph nodes as compared to benign nodes. However, PS was comparable (p-value=0.06). Trojanowski P et al., saw similar results in their study, who also showed an almost double value of BF in metastatic versus non metastatic cervical lymph nodes; with a significant increase in BV and PS, except for MTT value (13). The BF, BV and MTT values in the current study is in congruence to the study of Zhong J et al., who showed that when compared to benign nodes, malignant nodes had a significantly higher BF (114.62±14.26 vs 67.82±13.84, p-value=0.002); and significantly low MTT (5.56±0.39 vs 9.46±3.23, p-value=0.002); with higher but comparable BV (15).

In contrast, Bisdas S et al., found that there is no significant difference in CTP parameters between non metastatic and metastatic nodes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (12). Results of the present study may have been due to the inclusion of all metastatic nodes, which shows signs of central necrosis; which would have given very low perfusion values. Interpretation of the area under the ROC curve showed that the performance of blood flow was excellent (AUC: 0.883; 95% CI: 0.754 to 0.959) with least standard error.

Both neoplastic and inflammatory infiltration mainly take place in subcapsular sinus and shows enlargement of this area, may be one of the factors that is responsible for an increased blood uptake and its reflected by an increase of BF in the first place.

The AUC of blood volume, mean transit time and permeability surface are also good for predicting malignancy. These findings were matching with the findings of Zhong J et al., who showed that in the ROC curves of BF, values used for differentiating benign from metastatic LNs, the areas under the curve were 0.605 (15).

The best threshold BF value for differentiating malignant from benign nodes was more than 122 mL/100g/min with least standard error, yielding a sensitivity of 82.61%, specificity of 86.96%, accuracy of 84.78%, PPV of 86.4%, and NPV of 83.3%. The accuracy of BF in our study, was slightly higher than the study of Zhong J et al., where the best threshold BF value for differentiating malignant from benign nodes was 100.36 mL/100 g/min, yielding a sensitivity of 68.18%, specificity of 52.94%, accuracy of 64.46%, PPV of 80.48%, and NPV of 37.50% (15).

Suryavanshi S et al., demonstrated that the best threshold MTT value for differentiating malignant from benign nodes was 5.4 sec, yielding a sensitivity of 90.5%, specificity of 93.4%, accuracy of 92.7%, PPV of 82.6%, and NPV of 96.6%. Computed tomography perfusion might be useful in differentiation between metastatic and non metastatic cervical lymph nodes however this requires further validation (19).


The main limitation was the small sample size. The distribution of lymph nodes in the present study was unequal. Majority of the patients underwent ipsilateral neck dissection and therefore, the assessment of contralateral neck nodes could not be made.


Blood flow and blood volume has significantly increased values in metastatic cervical lymph nodes in comparison to non metastatic nodes, whereas MTT had significantly decreased values, however PS showed equivocal values. The CTP is a promising imaging tool in the detection or exclusion of metastatic cervical nodes and has the potential for not only determining the extent of neck dissection but also planning radiation therapy.


Vigneswaran N, Williams MD. Epidemiologic trends in head and neck cancer and aids in diagnosis. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2014;26(2):123-41. Doi:10.1016/j.coms.2014.01.001 [crossref] [PubMed]
Sankaranarayanan R, Masuyer E, Swaminathan R, Ferlay J, Whelan S. Head and neck cancer: A global perspective on epidemiology and prognosis. Anticancer Res. 1998;18:4779-86.
Sanghvi LD, Rao DN, Joshi S. Epidemiology of head and neck cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1989;5:305-09. [crossref] [PubMed]
Takiar R, Nadayil D, Nandakumar A. Projections of number of cancer cases in India by cancer groups. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010 1;11:1045-49.
Okura M, Aikawa T, Sawai NY, Iida S, Kogo M. Decision analysis and treatment threshold in a management for the N0 neck of the oral cavity carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:908-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;60:277- 300. [crossref] [PubMed]
Som PM. Detection of metastasis in cervical lymph nodes: CT and MR criteria and differential diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:961-69. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rouviere H. Anatomy of the human lymphatic system. Ann Arbor. 1938;318.
Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven. 1997.
Van den Brekel MWM, Reitsma LC, Snow GB . The outcome of a wait and see policy for the neck after negative ultrasound guided cytology results and followup with ultrasound guided cytology. Br J Cancer. 1998;77: 201.
Naik RM, Pai A, Guruprasad Y, Singh R. Efficacy of colour Doppler ultrasound in diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013;12(2):123- 29. Doi:10.1007/s12663-012-0395-1 [crossref] [PubMed]
Bisdas S, Baghi M, Smolarz A, Pihno NC, Lehnert T, Knecht R, et al. Quantitative measurements of perfusion and permeability of oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer, recurrent disease, and associated lymph nodes using first-pass contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies. Investigative Radiology. 2007;42:172-79. [crossref] [PubMed]
Trojanowski P, Klatka J, Trojanowska A, Jargiello T, Drop A. Evaluation of cervical lymph nodes with CT perfusion in patients with hypopharyngeal and laryngeal squamous cell cancer. Pol J Radiol. 2011;76(1):07-13.
Ellen G. Hoeffner, Ian Case, Rajan Jain, Sachin K. Gujar, Gaurang V. Shah, John P. Deveikis et al. Cerebral perfusion CT technique and clinical applications. Radiology. 2004:632-44. [crossref] [PubMed]
Zhong J, Lu Z, Xu L, Dong L, Qiao H, Hua R, 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. [crossref] [PubMed]
Chattopadhyay A. Epidemiologic study of oral cancer in eastern India. Indian J Dermatol. 1989;34(3):59-65.
Shenoi R, Devrukhkar V, Sharma BK, Sapre SB, Chikhale A. Demographic and clinical profile of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients: A retrospective study. Indian J Cancer. 2012;49(1):21-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
Sharma P, Saxena S, Aggarwal P. Trends in the epidemiology of oral squamous cell carcinoma in Western UP: An institutional study. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21(3):316-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
Suryavanshi S, Kumar J, Manchanda A, I Singh, Khurana N.Comparison of CECT and CT perfusion in differentiating benign from malignant neck nodes in oral cavity cancers. Eur J Radiol Open. 2021;8:100339. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/56097.17075

Date of Submission: Mar 07, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Apr 22, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Aug 04, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 15, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jul 23, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 02, 2022 (25%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)