Search

Your search keyword '"Lee, Andrew Y."' showing total 8 results
Start Over Author "Lee, Andrew Y." Publisher wiley
8 results on '"Lee, Andrew Y."'

3. Non‐operative management of biliary complications after Liver Transplantation in pediatric patients: A 30‐year experience

Author

Lee, Andrew Y., primary, Lehrman, Evan D., additional, Perito, Emily R., additional, Kerlan, Robert K., additional, Kohi, Maureen P., additional, Kolli, Kanti P., additional, Taylor, Andrew G., additional, Ostroff, James W., additional, Kang, Sang‐Mo, additional, Roberts, John P., additional, Rhee, Sue, additional, Rosenthal, Philip, additional, and Fidelman, Nicholas, additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Preoperative 18F‐FDG‐PET/CT vs Contrast‐Enhanced CT to Identify Regional Nodal Metastasis among Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Author

Cho, Joshua K., primary, Ow, Thomas J., additional, Lee, Andrew Y., additional, Smith, Richard V., additional, Schlecht, Nicolas F., additional, Schiff, Bradley A., additional, Tassler, Andrew B., additional, Lin, Juan, additional, Moadel, Renee M., additional, Valdivia, Ana, additional, Abraham, Tony, additional, Gulko, Edwin, additional, Neimark, Matthew, additional, Ustun, Berrin, additional, Bello, Jacqueline A., additional, and Shifteh, Keivan, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Impact of time of day on outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery for non–small cell lung cancer brain metastases

Author

Badiyan, Shahed N., primary, Ferraro, Daniel J., additional, Yaddanapudi, Sridhar, additional, Drzymala, Robert E., additional, Lee, Andrew Y., additional, Silver, Shawgi A., additional, Dyk, Pawel, additional, DeWees, Todd, additional, Simpson, Joseph R., additional, Rich, Keith M., additional, and Robinson, Clifford G., additional

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Preoperative 18 F-FDG-PET/CT vs Contrast-Enhanced CT to Identify Regional Nodal Metastasis among Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Author

Cho JK, Ow TJ, Lee AY, Smith RV, Schlecht NF, Schiff BA, Tassler AB, Lin J, Moadel RM, Valdivia A, Abraham T, Gulko E, Neimark M, Ustun B, Bello JA, and Shifteh K

Subjects
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell surgery, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms surgery, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Middle Aged, Neck, Neoplasm Staging, Preoperative Care, Reproducibility of Results, Retrospective Studies, Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell diagnostic imaging, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell pathology, Contrast Media, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Head and Neck Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Head and Neck Neoplasms pathology, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Radiopharmaceuticals, Tomography, X-Ray Computed methods
Abstract

Objective Our objective was to compare the accuracy of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in detecting cervical nodal metastases in patients treated with neck dissection and to scrutinize the ability of each modality to determine nodal stage. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Subjects and Methods Patients who underwent neck dissection at our institution for primary treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and had received preoperative PET/CT and CECT were included in this study. Imaging studies were reinterpreted by 3 specialists within the field and compared for interreader agreement. Concordance between radiology and histopathology was measured using neck levels and sides, along with patient nodal stage. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and agreement coefficients were calculated. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Sensitivity was 0.69 and 0.94 (level and side) for PET/CT vs 0.53 and 0.66 for CECT ( P = .056, P = .001). Specificity was 0.86 and 0.56 for PET/CT vs 0.91 and 0.76 for CECT ( P = .014, P = .024). No significant difference was found in overall accuracy ( P = .33, P = .88). The overall agreement percentages between N stage called by imaging modality and pathology were 52% and 55% for PET/CT and CECT, respectively. Conclusion No significant difference in sensitivity was found between PET/CT and CECT. CECT was found to have superior specificity compared with PET/CT. The information gleaned from each modality in the pretreatment evaluation of HNSCC appears to be complementary.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results