Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
To the editor,
We thank Professors King and Ai for their insightful response to our systematic review and meta-analysis [1]. The research being performed by their team has been fundamental to much of our understanding of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
The authors include an important and nuanced discussion of the grading system that they have developed for MRI diagnosis of NPC. This is of critical importance to radiologists’ interpretation and improvement of diagnostic accuracy. Unfortunately, many other papers that we included in our meta-analysis did not discuss their diagnostic criteria in depth. This precluded us from performing a feature-specific subgroup analysis. Use of reproducible imaging criteria will help radiologists to maintain consistent accuracy as pointed out in their letter.
We wanted to clarify that the paper by Liu and colleagues [2] was published during the peer-review process for our meta-analysis, and we adjusted our statistical analysis and manuscript to ensure its inclusion. Unfortunately, based on published information, concern about potential cohort overlap led us to exclude the earlier King and colleagues’ [3] study from our final analysis. Even allowing for this, MRI has been found to have a very high-test accuracy within the pooled cohort, and it is unlikely that inclusion of the further paper would alter the overall outcome.
We are very encouraged by the work being done by the team at CUHK and collaborators. In particular, they are developing a screening program which utilizes clinical data, serology, and imaging to facilitate early diagnosis of NPC. Multicenter, prospective validation of their MRI diagnostic criteria will be particularly useful given the role of imaging in this screening paradigm. It will also facilitate future comparative research and standardized reporting, both of which are essential to comprehensive cancer care, and for improving patient outcomes.
References
Gorolay VV, Niles NN, Huo YR, Ahmadi N, Hanneman K, Thompson E, Chan MV (2022) MRI detection of suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 30:1–1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-02941-w
Liu Z, Li H, Yu K et al (2021) Comparison of new magnetic resonance imaging grading system to conventional endoscopy for the early detection of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 127:3403–3412. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33552
King AD, Woo JKS, Ai QY et al (2019) Complementary roles of MRI and endoscopic examination in the early detection of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol 30:977–982. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz106
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gorolay, V.V., Thompson, E., Huo, Y.R. et al. Response to letter to the editor: “MRI detection of suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Neuroradiology 65, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03081-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03081-x