Table 5.
Identification rate of TORS/TLM in the presence of other findings
| Author | Physical Exam | DI (CT/MRI) | PET/CT | PE/DI/PET-CT | EUA with biopsy | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | - | + | - | + | - | + | - | + | - | |
| Abuzeid et al. [26] | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) |
| Blanco et al. [28] | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Durmus et al. [18] | 0/0 (0 %) | 17/22 (77 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 17/22 (77 %) | - | - | 10/11 (91 %) | 7/11 (64 %)a | 10/11 (91 %) | 7/11 (64 %) |
| Karni et al. [16] | 0/0 (0 %) | 17/18 (94 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 17/18 (94 %) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mehta et al. [19] | 0/0 (0 %) | 9/10 (90 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 9/10 (90 %) | 4/4 (100 %) | 5/6 (83 %) | 4/4 (100 %) | 5/6 (83 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 9/10 (90 %) |
| Mourad et al. [27] | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | - | - | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 0/0 (0 %) |
| Nagel et al. [17] | 0/0 (0 %) | 31/36 (86 %) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8/14 (57 %) |
| Patel et al. [15] | - | - | - | - | - | - | 18/26 (69 %)b | 13/18 (72 %) | 0/0 (0 %) | 11/18 (61 %)c |
| Total | 1/1 (100 %) | 75/87 (86 %) | 1/1 (100 %) | 43/50 (86 %) | 6/6 (100 %) | 5/6 (83 %) | 34/43 (79 %) | 25/35 (71 %) | 11/12 (92 %) | 36/54 (67 %) |
Abbreviations: DI diagnostic imaging, CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, PE physical examination, PET positron emission tomography, EUA panendoscopic examination under anesthesia
aNo suspicious findings on PET/CT, EUA, directed biopsies, or robotic exam
bDenominator was calculated as 47 total patients minus 18 patients without positive findings minus three patients who did not undergo radiographic imaging before TORS
cFailed deep tongue base biopsy