Synoptic reporting in head and neck cancers— Head and Neck Cancer Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (HN-CIRADS): The journey ahead for standardization of imaging in head and neck cancer staging : Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Health Systems And Quality Improvement

Synoptic reporting in head and neck cancers— Head and Neck Cancer Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (HN-CIRADS)

The journey ahead for standardization of imaging in head and neck cancer staging

Mahajan, Abhishek*,; Agarwal, Ujjwal; Gupta, Anurag; Shukla, Shreya; Ashtekar, Renuka; Shah, Pritesh; Sable, Nilesh; Ankathi, Suman Kumar; Ahuja, Ankita; Noronha, Vanita1; Prabhash, Kumar1; Menon, Nandini1; Patil, Vijay1; Vaish, Richa2; D' CRUZ, Anil K

Author Information
Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment: Apr–Jun 2022 - Volume 5 - Issue 2 - p 322-330
doi: 10.4103/crst.crst_304_21
  • Open

Abstract

Head and neck cancers are a major health burden in India due to the widespread use of tobacco in various forms. For proper care, clinical evaluation is required at the time of diagnosis and local staging of the disease. Characterization of tumor imaging, on the other hand, is critical for staging of deep-seated tumors. In the current era, reporting in head and neck cancers is mainly in free-text form. Therefore, the quality and structure of the report depend on the experience.[1]

Poor documentation of lesions and lack of communication has led to inadequate staging and suboptimal management. Hence, there is a need for synoptic reporting to standardize reports, reduce hassle, and better understand the disease status. Here, we propose the use of Head and Neck Imaging-Reporting and Data System (HNI-RADS) for synoptic reporting in head and neck cancers.

WHAT IS SYNOPTIC REPORTING?

Reporting is a means of communication to physicians and patients. Therefore, it undoubtedly needs to be precise and should not miss any vital information.[2] Synoptic reporting involves reporting specific data elements in a particular format. This provides standardized information in lesser time than random reporting.[3]

Certain key elements that are common to all synoptic reporting formats has been described in Supplementary Figure 1.

ADVANTAGES

  1. It allows for more detailed reporting and ensures nothing is missed. It ensures better surgical planning and communication by clinicians for treatment decision-making.
  2. Templates are regularly updated as per recent guidelines and clinician requirements.
  3. Synoptic reporting systems also generate reminders and alerts that help to carry out patient care tasks on schedule.
  4. Synoptic reporting facilitates data analysis, as one can analyze all data elements separately and more easily. Hence, it helps to understand patient outcomes with different therapies. Structured reports are recommended for any research activity involving radiology reporting, and databases have been generated over which automated informatics can be run.[3]
  5. Tumor response evaluation becomes efficient and effective as unnecessary data are excluded.

DISADVANTAGES

  1. Increasing volume, and a variety of data variables and poor formatting can result in information overload.
  2. It has been shown that increased clerical errors may occur with an increased number of required elements in synoptic reporting.[1]

IMAGING MODALITY OF CHOICE IN HEAD AND NECK CANCER

Superficial and easily accessible structures are best evaluated by clinical examination and endoscopy. However, deep structure involvement, depth of invasion, bony erosion, and perineural spread are only assessed via imaging [Table 1].

T1-26
Table 1:
Techniques for acquisition of head and neck imaging

Various techniques have been highlighted to delineate structures on computed tomography (CT) images, which are as follows [Table 2][4]:

T2-26
Table 2:
Imaging protocol in head and neck cancers
  1. Puffed cheek technique: The patient is instructed to blow through pursed lips consistently while moving the tongue away from the hard palate and teeth. The retromolar trigone, buccinator, pterygomandibular raphe, and cheek are all clearly defined.[45]
  2. Modified Valsalva maneuver: Expiration is performed against pursed nose for nasopharynx, and against pursed lips for hypopharyngeal lesions (opposed to closed glottis in Valsalva maneuver).[6]
  3. Phonation: The patient is asked to say “eee” uniformly for at least 10 seconds and a scan is acquired.
  4. Open mouth technique: A device (50 cc syringe) is placed between the teeth to immobilize the open mouth position.[7]

SITE-SPECIFIC SYNOPTIC REPORTING

Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) can be categorized into the following groups based on the anatomical subsite:

  1. Oral cavity and lips: Consist of buccal mucosa-buccinator complex along with upper and lower gingivobuccal sulcus, upper and lower alveolar region, retromolar trigone, hard palate, floor of the mouth, and anterior part of the tongue, i.e., anterior to the circumvallate papillae. The oropharynx consists of the soft palate and base of the tongue including the uvula, tonsils, and pharyngeal walls.[89]
  2. Hypopharynx: Consists of the bilateral pyriform sinuses, post cricoid region, and posterior hypopharyngeal wall.
  3. Nasopharynx
  4. Larynx
    • Supraglottic portion (suprahyoid epiglottis with both lingual and laryngeal surfaces, aryepiglottic folds, arytenoid cartilages, the false vocal cords, and the ventricles),
    • Glottis (true vocal cords and the anterior and posterior commissures), and
    • Sub glottis (from true vocal cords to the inferior margin of the cricoid).

Lips, oral cavity, and oropharynx

American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition changes[1011]:

  • Depth of invasion (DOI) is a critical criterion for T staging and prognostication (measured as perpendicular distance from the surface).
  • Extranodal extension (ENE) is an independent prognostic sign (imaging characteristics such as perinodal fat stranding, infiltration into neighboring fat or muscle, and necrosis have a high specificity for predicting ENE).[12]
  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) p16-positive tumors have a better prognosis and are staged separately. Primary tumors in p16-positive patients tend to have lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and higher kurtosis and skewness and large, multiple, and/or bilateral cystic nodes.[13]

Implications of key imaging findings in various head and neck cancers are shown in Table 3.

T3-26
Table 3:
Key imaging findings and their implications on management

Gingivobuccal, alveolus and retromolar trigone squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [Figure 1]:

F1-26
Figure 1:
Reporting format used in our department for staging of oral cancers
  • Most prevalent in Asian patients
  • Stages I and II cancers (T1-T2, N0) can be treated with single-modality treatment like surgery or radiotherapy (RT) for the primary tumor, which varies from patient to patient. Radiologists must be well-versed with the terms masticator space, infratemporal fossa (ITF), supranotch, and infranotch disease on the basis of the structures involved.[30]

According to 8th edition of the AJCC, disease involving masticator space is labelled as advanced T4b disease and deemed unresectable. However, Liao et al.[33] have reported that supranotch or high ITF disease has a poor outcome, whereas low ITF disease has a reasonably good outcome.

Key imaging features with implications on management and surgical planning:

  • Extranodal extension[31]
  • Depth of invasion[32]
  • High vs low ITF involvement[33]
  • Bone erosion[34]
  • Perineural spread[35]

More than 1.5 cm residual mandibular vertical height is required for mandible preservation surgery, whereas para-mandibular soft tissue, inferior alveolar canal involvement, and edentulous mandible are contraindications for marginal mandibulectomy.[3637]

For early detection of perineural dissemination, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is the method of choice. There is an increased enhancement along the relevant nerve due to a disruption of the blood-nerve barrier.[3839]

Lip SCC

These are better evaluated clinically. Advanced cancers are imaged to look for bony erosion and nodal disease.

SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth

  • SCCs of the tongue usually occur along the ventral/lateral surface.
  • Depth of invasion is crucial in disease staging.[40]
  • The pattern of lymphatic spread of SCCs of the oral tongue, lip, and floor of the mouth is predominantly to levels I and II nodes.[41]
  • Imaging protocol includes coronal short tau inversion recovery (STIR) and T1-weighted images, axial T1-weighted and T2-weighted images, sagittal T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted images in the axial plane for nodal assessment, and post-contrast images in all three planes [Figure 2].
F2-26
Figure 2:
Reporting format used in our department for staging of tongue cancers

Nasopharyngeal SCC (NSCC)

  • It is prevalent in northeast Asia.[42]
  • The primary treatment is external beam radiation to the nasopharyngeal bed and primary draining lymph node, although in advanced illness, concomitant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is administered.[43]
  • Direct visualization with flexible endoscopy is the most sensitive modality for demonstrating mucosal nasopharyngeal SCCs; however, deep-seated lesions require magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [Figure 3].
  • Imaging protocol:
    1. T1 axial and sagittal for skull base involvement
    2. T2 axial for peripheral nervous system involvement
    3. T1 post-contrast axial for perineural spread
    4. Diffusion-weighted imaging
F3-26
Figure 3:
Reporting format used in our department for staging of nasopharyngeal cancers

Laryngeal SCCs

SCCs accounts for 90% of laryngeal cancer cases with lymphoma being the second-most common diagnosis. Hoarseness is the most common symptom of laryngeal cancer, but other symptoms include a neck lump, dysphagia, stridor, and hemoptysis. Speaking, breathing, and swallowing are all affected by impaired laryngeal function caused by cancer and its treatment [Figure 4].

F4-26
Figure 4:
Reporting format used in our department for staging of laryngeal cancers

Neck node imaging

Nodal stations:

  1. Gingivobuccal and retromolar trigone malignancies drain to levels IB, II, and III.
  2. Oral and tongue malignancies drain to levels I, II, and III (contralateral adenopathy is also seen in tongue malignancies as a result of the disease crossing the midline).
  3. Nasopharyngeal malignancies drain to levels II and V.
    • The survival rates are reduced by 50% with a solitary lymph node metastasis from HNSCC, which is further reduced to 33% with contralateral node metastasis.
    • Morphological indicators of nodal metastasis include loss of fatty hilum, rounded appearance, necrosis, and cystic changes.

POST-TREATMENT EVALUATION

  1. For surveillance imaging (adopted from NI-RADS): It is performed in a manner similar to Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) [Table 4 and Figure 5][44]
  2. Post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy evaluation: It is performed for response assessment. Reporting template is similar to primary staging with documentation of change in the size and appearance of any new lesions.
  3. Post-palliative chemotherapy/Metronomic therapy
T4-26
Table 4:
Neck Imaging-Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) surveillance imaging
F5-26
Figure 5:
Reporting format used in our department for post-treatment evaluation of head and neck cancers

CONCLUSION

The quality of the report and clear communication of findings to treating physicians play an essential role in patient management. Synoptic reporting provides standardized information in shorter time and ensures detailed reports without missing significant findings, thereby affecting overall patient management.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Holman BL, Aliabadi P, Silverman SG, Weissman BN, Rudolph LE, Fener EF. Medical impact of unedited preliminary radiology reports Radiology. 1994;191:519–21
2. Halford GS, Baker R, McCredden JE, Bain JD. How many variables can humans process? Psychol Sci. 2005;16:70–6
3. Renshaw AA, Mena-Allauca M, Gould EW, Sirintrapun SJ. Synoptic reporting: Evidence-based review and future directions JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–9
4. Henrot P, Blum A, Toussaint B, Troufleau P, Stines J, Roland J. Dynamic maneuvers in local staging of head and neck malignancies with current imaging techniques: Principles and clinical applications Radiographics. 2003;23:1201–13
5. Weissman JL, Carrau RL. “Puffed-cheek” CT improves evaluation of the oral cavity AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:741–4
6. Çelebi I, Öz A, Sasani M, Bayindir P, Sözen E, Vural Ç, et al Using dynamic maneuvers in the computed tomography/magnetic resonance assessment of lesions of the head and neck Can Assoc Radiol J. 2013;64:351–7
7. Paul P, Sable N, Arya S. Imaging of oral cancer Oral Cancer Detection: Novel Strategies and Clinical Impact. 2019 Springer International Publishing:109–31
8. Hoang JK, Vanka J, Ludwig BJ, Glastonbury CM. Evaluation of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck cancer with CT and MRI: Tips, traps, and a systematic approach AJR Am JRoentgenol. 2013;200:W17–25
9. Abdel Razek AA. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of lesions at masticator space Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32:123–37
10. Colevas AD, Yom SS, Pfister DG, Spencer S, Adelstein D, Adkins D, et al NCCN guidelines insights: Head and neck cancers, version 1. 2018 J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:479–90
11. Chang WC, Chang CF, Li YH, Yang CY, Su RY, Lin CK, et al A histopathological evaluation and potential prognostic implications of oral squamous cell carcinoma with adverse features Oral Oncol. 2019;95:65–73
12. O'Rorke MA, Ellison MV, Murray LJ, Moran M, James J, Anderson LA. Human papillomavirus related head and neck cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis Oral oncol. 2012;48:1191–201
13. Zhang Z, Liu R, Jin R, Fan Y, Li T, Shuai Y, et al Integrating clinical and genetic analysis of perineural invasion in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma Front Oncol. 2019;9:434
14. Mahajan A, Ahuja A, Sable N, Stambuk HE. Imaging in oral cancers: A comprehensive overview of imaging findings for staging and treatment planning Oral Oncol. 2020;104:104658
15. Oliveira ML, Wagner VP, Sant'ana M, Carrard VC, Hugo FN, Martins MD. A 10-year analysis of the oral squamous cell carcinoma profile in patients from public health centers in Uruguay Braz Oral Res. 2015;29:S1806–83242015000100270
16. Patil VM, Prabhash K, Noronha V, Joshi A, Muddu V, Dhumal S, et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in very locally advanced technically unresectable oral cavity cancers Oral Oncol. 2014;50:1000–4
17. Bouhir S, Mortuaire G, Dubrulle-Berthelot F, Leroy X, Deken-Delannoy V, Rysman B, et al Radiological assessment of mandibular invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2019;136:361–6
18. Gou L, Yang W, Qiao X, Ye L, Yan K, Li L, et al Marginal or segmental mandibulectomy: Treatment modality selection for oral cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1–10
19. Baba A, Okuyama Y, Yamauchi H, Ikeda K, Ogino N, Kozakai A, et al Magnetic resonance imaging findings of styloglossus and hyoglossus muscle invasion: Relationship to depth of invasion and clinical significance as a predictor of advisability of elective neck dissection in node negative oral tongue cancer Eur J Radiol. 2019;118:19–24
20. Ravikanth R. MR evaluation of tongue carcinoma in the assessment of depth of invasion with histopathological correlation: A single center experience Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2020;30:126–38
21. King AD. MR Imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2022;30:19–33
22. Liang SB, Chen LS, Chen HY, Yang XL, Wang DH, Cui CY, et al Prognostic influence of prevertebral space involvement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A retrospective study Radiother Oncol. 2021;156:113–9
23. Feng Y, Cao C, Hu Q, Chen X. Grading of MRI–detected skull-base invasion in nasopharyngeal carcinoma with skull-base invasion after intensity-modulated radiotherapy Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:10
24. Chen YP, Chan AT, Le QT, Blanchard P, Sun Y, Ma J. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma Lancet. 2019;394:64–80
25. Gupta A, Young RJ. Supraglottic larynx and hypopharynx: An important anatomic distinction Radiographics. 2011;31:116
26. Wu JH, Zhao J, Li ZH, Yang WQ, Liu QH, Yang ZY, et al Comparison of CT and MRI in diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma with anterior vocal commissure involvement Sci Rep. 2016;6:30353
27. Sharma K, Ahlawat P, Gairola M, Tandon S, Sachdeva N, Sharief MI. Prognostic factors, failure patterns and survival analysis in patients with resectable oral squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue Radiat Oncol J. 2019;37:73–81
28. Weselik L, Majchrzak E, Ibbs M, Lewandowski A, Marszałek A, Machczyński P, et al Assessment of cartilage invasion in case of laryngeal cancer by means of longitudinal sectioning for histopathology–Clinical implications Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2019;24:443–9
29. Chung EJ, Kwon KH, Yoon DY, Cho SW, Kim EJ, Rho YS. Clinical outcome analysis of 47 patients with advanced head and neck cancer with preoperative suspicion of carotid artery invasion Head Neck. 2016;38:E287–92
30. Fernandes T, Lobo JC, Castro R, Oliveira MI, Som PM. Anatomy and pathology of the masticator space Insights Imaging. 2013;4:605–16
31. Tian S, Ferris MJ, Switchenko JM, Magliocca KR, Cassidy RJ, Jhaveri J, et al Prognostic value of radiographically defined extranodal extension in human papillomavirus-associated locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma Head Neck. 2019;41:3056–63
32. Weimar EA, Huang SH, Lu L, O'Sullivan B, Perez-Ordonez B, Weinreb I, et al Radiologic-pathologic correlation of tumor thickness and its prognostic importance in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: Implications for the eighth edition tumor, node, metastasis classification AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39:1896–902
33. Liao CT, Chang JT, Wang HM, Ng SH, Hsueh C, Lee LY, et al Surgical outcome of T4a and resected T4b oral cavity cancer Cancer. 2006;107:337–44
34. Mehta S, Kuriakose M.A.Bonanthaya K, Panneerselvam E, Manuel S, Kumar V.V, Rai A. Principles of Surgical Management of Oral Cancer Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery for the Clinician. 2021 Singapore Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1346-6_82
35. Varghese J, Kirsch C. Magnetic resonance imaging of the oral cavity and oropharynx Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2021;30:79–83
36. Du W, Fang Q, Wu Y, Wu J, Zhang X. Oncologic outcome of marginal mandibulectomy in squamous cell carcinoma of the lower gingiva BMC Cancer. 2019;19:775
37. Mazziotti S, Pandolfo I, D'Angelo T, Mileto A, Visalli C, Racchiusa S, et al Diagnostic approach to retromolar trigone cancer by multiplanar computed tomography reconstructions Can Assoc Radiol J. 2014;65:335–44
38. Tashi S, Purohit BS, Becker M, Mundada P. The pterygopalatine fossa: Imaging anatomy, communications, and pathology revisited Insights Imaging. 2016;7:589–99
39. DeAngelis A, Breik O, Angel C, Goh C, Iseli T, Nastri A, et al Can radiological examination of mandibular bone invasion accurately predict the need for mandibular resection in oral squamous cell carcinoma? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:576–83
40. Arya S, Chaukar D, Pai P. Imaging in oral cancers Indian J radiol Imaging. 2012;22:195–208
41. Pons Y, Ukkola-Pons E, Clément P, Gauthier J, Conessa C. Relevance of 5 different imaging signs in the evaluation of carotid artery invasion by cervical lymphadenopathy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol and Endod. 2010;109:775–8
42. Gupta B, Johnson NW, Kumar N. Global epidemiology of head and neck cancers: A continuing challenge Oncology. 2016;91:13–23
43. Hansen EK, Roach M Handbook of Evidence-Based Radiation Oncology. 2018:1–969
44. Aiken AH, Rath TJ, Anzai Y, Branstetter BF, Hoang JK, Wiggins RH, et al ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A white paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:1097–108
Keywords:

Head and neck cancers; imaging findings; radiologist; radiology; synoptic reporting

© 2022 Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment | Published by Wolters Kluwer – Medknow