PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare early dynamic imaging combined with delayed static imaging and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT with delayed, planar, static imaging alone for sentinel node (SN) identification in melanoma patients. METHODS: Three hundred and seven consecutive melanoma patients referred for SN biopsy (SNB) were examined using combined imaging. Secondary interpretation of only the delayed static images was subsequently performed. In 220 patients (72%), complete surgical and pathological information relating to the SNB was available. The number of SNs identified and number of patients with positive SNs were compared between the two interpretations of the imaging studies and, when available, related to pathology data. RESULTS: A slightly higher number of SNs (mean 0.12/patient) was identified when interpreting only delayed static images compared to combined imaging. In a direct patient-to-patient comparison, the number of SN(s) identified on the combined vs static images only showed moderate agreement (kappa value 0.56). In 38 patients (17%), positive SNs were identified by the combined procedure compared to 35 (16%) by static imaging only. Thus by static imaging only, tumour-positive SNs were not identified in 3 of 38 patients (8%). CONCLUSION: For SN identification in melanoma patients, dynamic imaging combined with delayed static imaging and SPECT/CT is superior to delayed static imaging only because the latter is more likely to fail to identify SNs containing metastases.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare early dynamic imaging combined with delayed static imaging and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT with delayed, planar, static imaging alone for sentinel node (SN) identification in melanomapatients. METHODS: Three hundred and seven consecutive melanomapatients referred for SN biopsy (SNB) were examined using combined imaging. Secondary interpretation of only the delayed static images was subsequently performed. In 220 patients (72%), complete surgical and pathological information relating to the SNB was available. The number of SNs identified and number of patients with positive SNs were compared between the two interpretations of the imaging studies and, when available, related to pathology data. RESULTS: A slightly higher number of SNs (mean 0.12/patient) was identified when interpreting only delayed static images compared to combined imaging. In a direct patient-to-patient comparison, the number of SN(s) identified on the combined vs static images only showed moderate agreement (kappa value 0.56). In 38 patients (17%), positive SNs were identified by the combined procedure compared to 35 (16%) by static imaging only. Thus by static imaging only, tumour-positive SNs were not identified in 3 of 38 patients (8%). CONCLUSION: For SN identification in melanomapatients, dynamic imaging combined with delayed static imaging and SPECT/CT is superior to delayed static imaging only because the latter is more likely to fail to identify SNs containing metastases.
Authors: Naomi Alazraki; Edwin C Glass; Frank Castronovo; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Donald Podoloff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J F Thompson; W H McCarthy; C M Bosch; C J O'Brien; M J Quinn; S Paramaesvaran; K Crotty; S W McCarthy; R F Uren; R Howman-Giles Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Robert Elashoff; Richard Essner; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harald J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Douglas S Reintgen; Brendon J Coventry; Edwin C Glass; He-Jing Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Bin B R Kroon; Michael W J M Wouters; Michiel W M van den Brekel; Wouter V Vogel; Cornelis A Hoefnagel; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Giammarile; Omgo E Nieweg; Julien Dubreuil; Alessandro Testori; Riccardo A Audisio; Odysseas Zoras; Michael Lassmann; Annette H Chakera; Roger Uren; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ingo Stoffels; Ken Herrmann; Jan Rekowski; Philipp Jansen; Dirk Schadendorf; Andreas Stang; Joachim Klode Journal: Trials Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 2.279