Review of Diagnostic Radiology Imaging Modalities for Evaluating Skin Lesions Involving the Head and Neck
Main Article Content
Abstract
While skin lesions are apparent on clinical exam, diagnostic imaging is sometimes warranted to assess the local and distant extent of disease. CT imaging offers high-resolution anatomical detail and is particularly valuable in delineating deep-seated lesions, bone involvement, and assessing metastatic spread. MRI provides excellent soft tissue contrast and is indispensable for evaluating lesions in anatomically complex regions such as the head and neck. Ultrasound, on the other hand, offers real-time imaging, portability, and cost-effectiveness, making it an essential tool in the initial assessment and surveillance of superficial skin lesions. PET imaging, although less commonly employed for primary skin lesion evaluation, plays a crucial role in detecting metastatic disease and assessing treatment response in advanced-stage malignancies. Each modality has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of imaging technique depends on factors such as lesion characteristics, clinical indication, and availability of resources. Integration of multiple imaging modalities with clinical and histopathological correlation enhances diagnostic accuracy and facilitates optimal patient management. This review highlights the roles of CT, MRI, PET, and ultrasound in the comprehensive evaluation of skin lesions, with a focus on their respective indications, advantages, and utility in clinical practice.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Sattler E, Kästle R, Welzel J. Optical coherence tomography in dermatology. J Biomed Opt. 2013 Jun;18(6):061224.
3. Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging:; Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD, Wessell DE, Cassidy RC, Czuczman GJ, Demertzis JL, Lenchik L, Motamedi K, Pierce JL, Sharma A, Walker EA, Ying-Kou Yung E, Beaman FD. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Soft-Tissue Masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 May;15(5S):S189-S197.
4. Teixeira PA, Gay F, Chen B, Zins M, Sirveaux F, Felblinger J, Blum A. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the initial characterization of non-fatty soft tissue tumors: correlation between T2 signal intensity and ADC values. Skeletal Radiol. 2016 Feb;45(2):263-71.
5. Sun J, Li B, Li CJ, Li Y, Su F, Gao QH, Wu FL, Yu T, Wu L, Li LJ. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cervical lymph node metastasis of head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2015 Jun 8;8:1291-313.
6. Abdullaeva U, Pape B, Hirvonen J. Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI in Detecting the Perineural Spread of Head and Neck Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Jan 4;14(1):113.
7. Mukherji SK, Chenevert TL, Castillo M. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Neuroophthalmol. 2002 Jun;22(2):118-22.
8. Nakayama M, Tabuchi K, Nakamura Y, Hara A. Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. Journal of Skin Cancer. 2011;2011:1-9.
9. Fabiszewska E, Pasicz K, Grabska I, Skrzyński W, Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk W, Bulski W. Evaluation of Imaging Parameters of Ultrasound Scanners: Baseline for Future Testing. Pol J Radiol. 2017 Dec 15;82:773-782.
10. Mahajan S, Barker CA, Singh B, Pandit-Taskar N. Clinical Value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Staging Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2019;40(7):744-751.
11. Moses WW. Fundamental Limits of Spatial Resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011 Aug 21;648 Supplement 1:S236-S240.
12. Yeh R, Amer A, Johnson JM, Ginat DT. Pearls and Pitfalls of 18FDG-PET Head and Neck Imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2022 May;32(2):287-298.