Pilot study evaluates NI-RADS effectiveness in post-treatment imaging for head and neck cancer, suggesting reliable diagnostics.
BACKGROUND: This pilot study evaluates the diagnostic performance and clinical relevance of the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This retrospective study included 25 patients with histologically confirmed HNSCC treated between August 2021 and December 2024. All patients underwent at least two post-treatment CT or MRI scans, independently reviewed by two radiologists and classified according to the NI-RADS system. Recurrence was confirmed by histopathology or clinical and imaging follow-up. Diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy, were calculated using a threshold of NI-RADS ≥ 3. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for primary and neck sites. RESULTS: A total of 56 imaging studies and 112 anatomical sites were assessed. Recurrence was confirmed in 36% of primary sites and 27% of neck sites. NI-RADS category 1 showed 0% recurrence, whereas category 4 showed 100% recurrence for both anatomical sites. For the primary site, sensitivity was 80% (95% CI: 56-94%) and specificity 92% (95% CI: 78-98%), with an accuracy of 88% (95% CI: 76-95%). For neck sites, sensitivity was 80% (95% CI: 52-96%) and specificity 98% (95% CI: 87-100%), with an accuracy of 93% (95% CI: 82-98%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 for the primary site and 0.88 for the neck site. CONCLUSIONS: NI-RADS showed good diagnostic performance for detecting locoregional recurrence in post-treatment surveillance of HNSCC using CT and MRI. However, given the retrospective design and limited sample size, these findings should be considered preliminary and require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greco et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: