BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to establish the reliability of lymphoscintigraphy in indicating the number of sentinel nodes in patients with melanoma. METHODS: Lymphoscintigraphy was performed with dynamic imaging after injection of 60 MBq 99mTc-nanocolloid (1.6 mCi) and static imaging after 2 hours in 200 patients with clinically localized primary melanoma of the skin. The following day, sentinel nodes were retrieved with the blue dye technique and a gamma detection probe (Neoprobe 1000/1500). The discrepancies between the number of sentinel nodes indicated by lymphoscintigraphy and the actual number of sentinel nodes as established by the surgeon were evaluated. RESULTS: Lymphoscintigraphy showed drainage to 393 sentinel nodes in 255 lymphatic fields in 199 patients. In 48 lymphatic fields (19%) in 46 patients (23%), the number of sentinel nodes was different from the number that was visualized with scintigraphy. Additional sentinel nodes were found by the surgeon because a lymphatic vessel was not seen on the lymphoscintigraphy (43%), because a sentinel node was not visualized separately from other hot nodes or vessels or the injection site (36%), or because a sentinel node was blue and not hot (4%). Fewer sentinel nodes were found than suggested by scintigraphy because a lymphangioma was mistaken for a sentinel node (4%) or because a single elongated node was depicted as two hot spots (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although lymphoscintigraphy is indispensable for lymphatic mapping, the predicted number of sentinel nodes is accurate in only 81% of lymph node fields. The limited discriminating power of the gamma camera is an important cause of discrepancies.
BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to establish the reliability of lymphoscintigraphy in indicating the number of sentinel nodes in patients with melanoma. METHODS: Lymphoscintigraphy was performed with dynamic imaging after injection of 60 MBq 99mTc-nanocolloid (1.6 mCi) and static imaging after 2 hours in 200 patients with clinically localized primary melanoma of the skin. The following day, sentinel nodes were retrieved with the blue dye technique and a gamma detection probe (Neoprobe 1000/1500). The discrepancies between the number of sentinel nodes indicated by lymphoscintigraphy and the actual number of sentinel nodes as established by the surgeon were evaluated. RESULTS: Lymphoscintigraphy showed drainage to 393 sentinel nodes in 255 lymphatic fields in 199 patients. In 48 lymphatic fields (19%) in 46 patients (23%), the number of sentinel nodes was different from the number that was visualized with scintigraphy. Additional sentinel nodes were found by the surgeon because a lymphatic vessel was not seen on the lymphoscintigraphy (43%), because a sentinel node was not visualized separately from other hot nodes or vessels or the injection site (36%), or because a sentinel node was blue and not hot (4%). Fewer sentinel nodes were found than suggested by scintigraphy because a lymphangioma was mistaken for a sentinel node (4%) or because a single elongated node was depicted as two hot spots (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although lymphoscintigraphy is indispensable for lymphatic mapping, the predicted number of sentinel nodes is accurate in only 81% of lymph node fields. The limited discriminating power of the gamma camera is an important cause of discrepancies.
Authors: Annette H Chakera; Birger Hesse; Zeynep Burak; James R Ballinger; Allan Britten; Corrado Caracò; Alistair J Cochran; Martin G Cook; Krzysztof T Drzewiecki; Richard Essner; Einat Even-Sapir; Alexander M M Eggermont; Tanja Gmeiner Stopar; Christian Ingvar; Martin C Mihm; Stanley W McCarthy; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Richard A Scolyer; Hans Starz; John F Thompson; Giuseppe Trifirò; Giuseppe Viale; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Roger Uren; Wendy Waddington; Arturo Chiti; Alain Spatz; Alessandro Testori Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Hans Peter Bertsch; Pawel Bardzik; Johannes Meller; Simin Hellriegel; Kai-Martin Thoms; Michael Peter Schön; Carsten Oliver Sahlmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthew P Doepker; Maki Yamamoto; Matthew A Applebaum; Nupur U Patel; M Jaime Montilla-Soler; Amod A Sarnaik; C Wayne Cruse; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Francesco Segreto; Daniele Tosi; Giovanni Francesco Marangi; Alfonso Luca Pendolino; Stefano Santoro; Pierluigi Gigliofiorito; Paolo Persichetti Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2013-09-13