CT and MR Findings in Head and Neck Cancer

  • Elias C. Primetis
  • Apostolos V. Dalakidis


Cross-sectional imaging has revolutionized staging and treatment planning of head and neck malignancies. Both CT and MRI are able to depict pathology and provide valuable information allowing for tissue characterization and better discrimination among various pathologic entities, thus facilitating differential diagnosis. Exquisite anatomic details provided by cross-sectional imaging facilitate assessment of disease extension and staging, resulting in better patient management. In particular, MRI is considered the modality of choice for the evaluation of nasopharyngeal, sinonasal, and parotid tumors, while tumors of the oropharynx, larynx, and hypopharynx are initially assessed with CT. The initial step when evaluating a neck lesion is to determine the space where the lesion originates, since specific lesions are being found within each separate anatomic space. This is markedly limiting the differential diagnosis. Additionally, lymph node status is an important prognostic factor, and in cross-sectional imaging, its evaluation mainly relies on size criteria, while the presence of central necrosis is also an important feature. In case of laryngeal carcinoma, the role of cross-sectional imaging is to evaluate tumor extent, while it contributes to treatment planning and patient follow-up. Finally, in many head and neck regions, such as sinuses, nasopharynx, skull base, oral cavity, and hypopharynx-larynx, CT and MR imaging have complementary roles.


Cancer CT Head MRI Neck 


  1. 1.
    Rumboldt Z, Gordon L, Gordon L et al (2006) Imaging in head and neck cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 7:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alberico RA, Husain SH, Sirotkin I (2004) Imaging in head and neck oncology. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 13:13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harnsberger HR et al (2004) Diagnostic imaging: head and neck. Amirsys, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Razek AA, Huang BY (2011) Soft tissue tumors of the head and neck: imaging-based review of the WHO classification. Radiographics 31:1923–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yousem DM, Tufano RP (2002) Laryngeal imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 10:451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Som PM, Curtin HD (2011) Head and neck imaging. Mosby Elsevier, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anzai Y, Brunberg JA, Lufkin RB (1997) Imaging of nodal metastases in the head and neck. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steinkamp HJ, Cornehl M, Hosten N et al (1995) Cervical lymphadenopathy: ratio of long- to short-axis diameter as a predictor of malignancy. Br J Radiol 68:266–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elias C. Primetis
    • 1
  • Apostolos V. Dalakidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Athens Medical School, Aretaieion HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations