Title: Role of computed tomography in the evaluation of neck masses

Authors: Dr Manohar B. Kachare, Dr Amarnath R. Mohan

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i7.216

Abstract

Introduction: Neck masses can be of diverse etiology and origin and usually pose a diagnostic challenge to treating surgeon or physician. A patient with neck mass almost always is referred for imaging; a very close and compact arrangement of vital structures, coupled with complex deposition of deep cervical fascia (DCF) makes neck imaging difficult even for general radiologist. Ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can all be used in non invasive assessment of neck lesions. While ultrasound can provide important information about superficial lesions like those affecting the thyroid and neck vessels, it has got limited spatial resolution moreover it is operator dependant. It is also poor is characterizing lesion of deep spaces of neck. MRI is extremely useful in assessment of neck lesions due to its excellent soft tissue delineation and multiplaner imaging capabilities but is limited by its availability and cost. Moreover it requires patient to remain still for a longer duration which sometimes is not possible in painful neck masses and may require sedation in paediatric patients. Because of these drawbacks associated with ultrasound and MRI, CT has emerged as an important modality for diagnosis of neck lesions. Various neck masses which can reliably be diagnosed on computed tomography include congenital and developmental masses, infections, neoplastic diseases and vascular masses. This study was conducted to study the utility of computed tomography in above mentioned neck masses. 

Aims and Objectives:  To study the use of spiral Computed tomography and multidimensional reformations for detection and characterization of various neck masses i.e. congenital and developmental neck masses, infections, neoplastic and vascular masses. 

Materials and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study consisting of 117 patients who presented with neck masses conducted at a tertiary care medical hospital in an urban area. The patients having history suggestive of neck mass like hoarseness of voice, palpable lesion in neck, mass seen on indirect laryngoscopy and neck survey revealing neck mass of unknown etiology were included in this study. The patients were kept NBM at least for 4 hours before doing CT scan. CT neck with contrast was done according to a pre-defined protocol. Multiplaner reconstructions were performed whenever applicable. The images were reviewed and studied with special consideration to the purpose of the study.

Results: Total 117 patients with neck masses who met the criteria of the study were included in this study. There were 69 males (58.97%) and 48 females (41.03%) with a male to female ratio of 1:0.69. Most common etiology of neck mass was found to be infections (17.9%) followed by ca larynx (14.5%) and swellings involving thyroid gland (11.1%). Least common causes were found to be schwannoma, laryngeal papillomatosis, tracheal tumours, brachial cysts, lipoma of neck and pleomorphic adenoma of submandibular gland which were seen in 0.85% each. The study of infectious lesions revealed that the most common space involved in infections was submandibular space which were seen in 12/21 (57.14%) patients followed by retropharyngeal (23.81%) and pre vertebral spaces (9.52%). Carcinoma larynx and hypopharynx was found to be most common in the age group of 61-70 years (12/17) and was more common in males. It was not seen in patients below 30 years or above 70 years of age in our study. While the most common site of laryngeal carcinoma was found to be supraglottic region (14/17) followed by glottic (2/17) and transglottic regions (1/17), hypopharyngeal carcinoma was most commonly seen in the region of pyriform fossa (9/12). Neoplastic lesions of neck were found to be associated with lymphadenopathy involving level I -IV. The most common pathology seen in swellings involving thyroid gland was multi nodular goiter (9/13) followed by anaplastic carcinoma (3/13) and papillary carcinoma (1/13). Most common pathology involving parotid was chronic pancreatitis which was seen in 2 patients. Other causes of neck swellings found in our study included neoplastic diseases (ca-buccal mucosa, tonsil, cervical esophagus and nasopharynx), ranula, parathyroid diseases, lymohangioma, haemangioma and lymphadenopathy.

Conclusion: Though in recent years MR imaging is considered to be imaging modality of choice for neck masses computed tomography is extremely useful in defining bony involvement and soft tissue extent of the lesion. It is fast, widely available and suitable for even patients in whom MRI may be contraindicated.    

Keywords: Neck swellings, Computed Tomography, Staging of tumour, Lymphadenopathy. 

References

  1. McGuirt WF. The neck mass. Med Clin North Am. 1999 Jan;83(1) 219-34. PubMed PMID: 9927971.
  2. Bussu F, Parrilla C, Rizzo D, Almadori G, Paludetti G, Galli J. Clinical approach and treatment of benign and malignant parotid masses, personal experience . Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica. 2011;31(3): 135-143.
  3. Vogl TJ, Harth M, Siebenhandl P. Different imaging techniques in the head and neck: Assets and drawbacks. World Journal of Radiology. 2010;2(6):224-229.
  4. Branstetter BF 4th, Weissman JL. Normal anatomy of the neck with CT and MR imaging correlation. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Sep;38(5):925-40
  5. Bielamowicz SA, Storper IS, Jabour BA, Lufkin RB, Hanafee WN. Spaces and triangles of the head and neck. Head Neck. 1994 Jul-Aug;16(4):383-8.
  6. Smoker WR, Harnsberger HR. Differential diagnosis of head and neck lesions based on their space of origin. 2. The infrahyoid portion of the neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Jul;157(1):155-9.
  7. Lodder WL, Lange CAH, Teertstra HJ, Pameijer FA, van den Brekel MWM, Balm AJM. Value of MR and CT Imaging for Assessment of Internal Carotid Artery Encasement in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. International Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2013;2013:968758.
  8. Widmann G, Henninger B, Kremser C, Jaschke W. MRI Sequences in Head & Neck Radiology - State of the Art. Rofo. 2017 May;189(5):413-422.
  9. Baikoussis NG, Apostolakis E, Papakonstantinou NA, Sarantitis I, Dougenis D. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implanted cardiac prostheses and metallic cardiovascular electronic devices. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011  Jun;91(6):2006-11
  10. Carlson ML, Neff BA, Link MJ, Lane JI, Watson RE, McGee KP, Bernstein MA, Driscoll CL. Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Cochlear Implant Magnet in Place:safety and Imaging Quality. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Jul;36(6):965-71. 
  11. Brown RE, Harave S. Diagnostic imaging of benign and malignant neck masses in children—a pictorial review. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. 2016;6(5):591-604.
  12. Chen B, Yin S-K, Zhuang Q-X, Cheng Y-S. CT and MR imaging for detecting neoplastic invasion of esophageal inlet. World Journal of Gastroenterology : WJG. 2005;11(3):377-381.
  13. Baum U, Greess H, Lell M, Nömayr A, Lenz M. Imaging of head and neck tumors--methods: CT, spiral-CT, multislice-spiral-CT. Eur J Radiol. 2000 Mar;33(3):153-60.
  14. Kalender WA, Polacin A, Süss C. A comparison of conventional and spiral CT: an experimental study on the detection of spherical lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994 Mar-Apr;18(2):167-76. Erratum in: J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994 Jul-Aug;18(4):671. 
  15. Groell R, Willfurth P, Schaffler GJ, Mayer R, Schmidt F, Uggowitzer MM,Tillich M, Genser B. Contrast-enhanced spiral CT of the head and neck: comparison of contrast material injection rates. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999 Oct;20(9):1732-6.
  16. Burghardt AJ, Link TM, Majumdar S. High-resolution Computed Tomography for Clinical Imaging of Bone Micro-architecture. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2011;469(8):2179-2193.
  17. Hooper KD: Questions and answers. AJR, 166: 293-299; 1996.
  18. Yoon Dy. Chang KH et al: Re-evaluation of the optimal dose of contrast medium for vascular enhancement in CT of head and neck: Neuroradiology 1997; 39(1): 30-40.
  19. Mukherji SK: Radiological appearance of irradiated larynx, part I expected changes. Radiology ; 1994; 193(I): 141-148.
  20. Silverman PM et al : 3D imaging of Larynx and hypopharynx by means of helical (Spiral) CT. Comparison of Radiological and otolaryngological evaluation. Annoto Rhino Laryngol : 1995; 104: 425-31.
  21. Keberle M et al. Diagnostic impact of multiplanar reformations in multislice CT of laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas. Roto Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Newer Bildgeb Vertahr : 2003 Aug 175(8) 1079-85. 
  22. Shugar JM, Som PM et al: Multicentric parotid cysts and cervical adenopathy in AIDS patients. A newly recognised entity: CT and MRI Manifestations. Laryngoscope 98: 773-8; (1988).
  23. Hopkins CR, Reading CC: Thyroid and parathyroid imaging. Seminars in US, CT,MRI: 16: 273-95, 1995.
  24. Byrne MN: A Retrospective study of 281 parotid masses Laryngoscopes: 88(1): 99-105; 1988.
  25. Camacho AE: Pathological correlation of the unknown parotid mass in children. Otolaryngol Head and Neck Surgery. 101(5): 566-71, 1989.

Corresponding Author

Dr Amarnath R. Mohan

Sonoscan imaging & diagnostic Centre Pvt.Ltd. Miraj 416410