Distributions of percentage tumor areas with distinctive ADC values (pADC) of different types of salivary gland carcinomas.

<p>Bar graph shows pADCs of the 20 patients with salivary gland carcinoma. A whole tumor area was categorized into either of pADC with extremely low (<0.6 × 10⁻³ mm²/s), low (0.6 × 10⁻³ mm²/s ≤ ADC <1.2 × 10⁻³ mm²/s), intermediate (1.2 × 10⁻³ mm²/s ≤ ADC <1.8 × 10⁻³ mm²/s), or high (≥1.8 × 10⁻³ mm²/s) ADCs, and expressed as percentage tumor areas. CxPA, carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma; ACCa, adenoid cystic carcinoma; EMC, epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma; SDC, salivary duct carcinoma; ANOS, adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified; MEC, mucoepidemoid carcinoma; LEC, lymphoepithelial carcinoma; SCCa, small cell carcinoma.</p

39-year-old man with small cell carcinoma (T3N1M0).

<p><b>A</b>, Axial T1-weighted MR image shows ill-defined, homogeneous cancer arising in palatal gland (arrowhead). <b>B</b>, Axial fat-suppressed T2-weighted MR image shows heterogeneous parenchyma (arrowhead). <b>C</b>, Axial, color ADC map. White demarcation indicates an ROI manually placed within the tumor area for ADC measurement. Color scale bar indicates ADC levels (0–1.8 × 10⁻³ mm²/s). He died of cancer within the first 3 years (14 months) after surgical excision of primary cancer.</p

Comparison of ADC parameters between patients who died of cancer and those who were alive at the end of the follow-up periods.

<p>Comparison of ADC parameters between patients who died of cancer and those who were alive at the end of the follow-up periods.</p

Histological subtypes and ADC parameters of 20 salivary gland carcinomas.

<p>Histological subtypes and ADC parameters of 20 salivary gland carcinomas.</p

Univariate Cox-proportional hazard regression models for the correlations between ADC parameters and the survival of patients with salivary gland carcinoma.

<p>Univariate Cox-proportional hazard regression models for the correlations between ADC parameters and the survival of patients with salivary gland carcinoma.</p

Status of surgical margins, additional treatment after the initial surgery, and prognosis of 20 patients with salivary gland carcinoma.

<p>Status of surgical margins, additional treatment after the initial surgery, and prognosis of 20 patients with salivary gland carcinoma.</p

Univariate logistic regression and ROC analyses for the correlations between ADC parameters and cancer death in 20 patients with salivary gland carcinoma.

<p>Univariate logistic regression and ROC analyses for the correlations between ADC parameters and cancer death in 20 patients with salivary gland carcinoma.</p

Influence of pre-existing 1st met and history of ND in the same neck side of 2nd met.

<p><b>A</b>, <b>B</b>, Kaplan-Meier analysis in 95 HNSCC patients with 2nd mets. The number of cases at risk (no. at risk) at each time point (0–120 months) was provided in B. p <0.003 for patient groups with (neck with 1st met) vs. without (neck without 1st met) preceding 1st met and ND in the same neck side of 2nd met (log-rank test). <b>C</b>, Correlations between ENS in 2nd mets and 1st met and/or ND history in the same neck sides of 79 HNSCC patients with 2nd met. ENS-positive rates were calculated for patient groups with different profiles of 1st met and ND history, including 1st met (+)/ND (+), 1st met (-)/ND (+), and 1st met (-)/ND (-). p = 0.008 for different groups (Cochran-Armitage test).</p

Consort diagram shows definition and metastatic node (met) profiles of 2 patient groups (Group I and II).

<p>Group I patients were selected from the clinical data base as those who underwent surgical excision of primary HNSCC between 1994 and 2015, were examined preoperatively and postoperatively with CT or MR imaging for the primary and neck lesions, and did not fit the exclusion criteria listed (78 of 598 had died from cancer at analysis); and Group II patients were from the Group I as those who were histopatholocally or clinically confirmed to have or have not ENS (63 of 516 had died from cancer at analysis).</p

Cumulative incidence function in 548 HNSCC patients with different 1st and 2nd met profiles.

<p>The number of cases at risk (no. at risk) at each time point (0–200 months) was provided in B. Gray’s test was used to compare cumulative incidences between different groups. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust p-values in multiple comparisons in the Gray’s test and a difference in survival probability between 2 curves with a p-value of <0.0083 (= 0.05/6) was considered significant. p <0.0001 for patient groups with 1st met (-)/2nd met (-) vs. 1st met (+)/2nd met (-), or 1st met (-)/2nd met (+), or 1st met (+)/2nd met (+), and 1st met (+)/2nd met (-) vs. 1st met (+)/2nd met (+); p = 0.0078 for patient groups with 1st met (-)/2nd met (+) vs. 1st met (+)/2nd met (+); p = 0.222 for patient groups with 1st met (+)/2nd met (-) vs. 1st met (-)/2nd met (+).</p