OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and clinical utility of intraoperative mobile gamma camera (MGC) imaging in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma. BACKGROUND: The false-negative rate for SLNB for melanoma is approximately 17%, for which failure to identify the sentinel lymph node (SLN) is a major cause. Intraoperative imaging may aid in detection of SLN near the primary site, in ambiguous locations, and after excision of each SLN. The present pilot study reports outcomes with a prototype MGC designed for rapid intraoperative image acquisition. We hypothesized that intraoperative use of the MGC would be feasible and that sensitivity would be at least 90%. METHODS: From April to September 2008, 20 patients underwent Tc99 sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy, and SLNB was performed with use of a conventional fixed gamma camera (FGC), and gamma probe followed by intraoperative MGC imaging. Sensitivity was calculated for each detection method. Intraoperative logistical challenges were scored. Cases in which MGC provided clinical benefit were recorded. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting SLN basins was 97% for the FGC and 90% for the MGC. A total of 46 SLN were identified: 32 (70%) were identified as distinct hot spots by preoperative FGC imaging, 31 (67%) by preoperative MGC imaging, and 43 (93%) by MGC imaging pre- or intraoperatively. The gamma probe identified 44 (96%) independent of MGC imaging. The MGC provided defined clinical benefit as an addition to standard practice in 5 (25%) of 20 patients. Mean score for MGC logistic feasibility was 2 on a scale of 1-9 (1 = best). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative MGC imaging provides additional information when standard techniques fail or are ambiguous. Sensitivity is 90% and can be increased. This pilot study has identified ways to improve the usefulness of an MGC for intraoperative imaging, which holds promise for reducing false negatives of SLNB for melanoma.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and clinical utility of intraoperative mobile gamma camera (MGC) imaging in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma. BACKGROUND: The false-negative rate for SLNB for melanoma is approximately 17%, for which failure to identify the sentinel lymph node (SLN) is a major cause. Intraoperative imaging may aid in detection of SLN near the primary site, in ambiguous locations, and after excision of each SLN. The present pilot study reports outcomes with a prototype MGC designed for rapid intraoperative image acquisition. We hypothesized that intraoperative use of the MGC would be feasible and that sensitivity would be at least 90%. METHODS: From April to September 2008, 20 patients underwent Tc99 sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy, and SLNB was performed with use of a conventional fixed gamma camera (FGC), and gamma probe followed by intraoperative MGC imaging. Sensitivity was calculated for each detection method. Intraoperative logistical challenges were scored. Cases in which MGC provided clinical benefit were recorded. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting SLN basins was 97% for the FGC and 90% for the MGC. A total of 46 SLN were identified: 32 (70%) were identified as distinct hot spots by preoperative FGC imaging, 31 (67%) by preoperative MGC imaging, and 43 (93%) by MGC imaging pre- or intraoperatively. The gamma probe identified 44 (96%) independent of MGC imaging. The MGC provided defined clinical benefit as an addition to standard practice in 5 (25%) of 20 patients. Mean score for MGC logistic feasibility was 2 on a scale of 1-9 (1 = best). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative MGC imaging provides additional information when standard techniques fail or are ambiguous. Sensitivity is 90% and can be increased. This pilot study has identified ways to improve the usefulness of an MGC for intraoperative imaging, which holds promise for reducing false negatives of SLNB for melanoma.
Authors: Rooshdiya Z Karim; Richard A Scolyer; Wei Li; Vivian S K Yee; J Gregory McKinnon; Ling-Xi L Li; Roger F Uren; Stella Lam; Alison Beavis; Michael Dawson; Philip Doble; Dave S B Hoon; John F Thompson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K M McMasters; D S Reintgen; M I Ross; S L Wong; J E Gershenwald; D N Krag; R D Noyes; V Viar; P B Cerrito; M J Edwards Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alessandro Testori; Gian Luca De Salvo; Maria Cristina Montesco; Giuseppe Trifirò; Simone Mocellin; Giorgio Landi; Giuseppe Macripò; Paolo Carcoforo; Giuseppe Ricotti; Giuseppe Giudice; Franco Picciotto; Davide Donner; Franco Di Filippo; Javier Soteldo; Dario Casara; Mauro Schiavon; Antonella Vecchiato; Sandro Pasquali; Federica Baldini; Giovanni Mazzarol; Carlo Riccardo Rossi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S Buono; N Burgio; M Hamoudeh; H Fessi; E Hiltbrand; L Maciocco; S Mehier-Humbert Journal: Anticancer Agents Med Chem Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.505
Authors: Avnesh S Thakor; Jesse V Jokerst; Pejman Ghanouni; Jos L Campbell; Erik Mittra; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kosta Popovic; Jack E McKisson; Brian Kross; Seungjoon Lee; John McKisson; Andrew G Weisenberger; James Proffitt; Alexander Stolin; Stan Majewski; Mark B Williams Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: Victor Ilisie; Laura Moliner; Constantino Morera; Johan Nuyts; José María Benlloch Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Annie K Kogler; Andrew M Polemi; Surabhi Nair; Stanislaw Majewski; Lynn T Dengel; Craig L Slingluff; Brian Kross; S J Lee; J E McKisson; John McKisson; Andrew G Weisenberger; Benjamin L Welch; Thomas Wendler; Philipp Matthies; Joerg Traub; Michael Witt; Mark B Williams Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 3.138