PURPOSE: Lymphoscintigraphic imaging and adequate interpretation of the lymphatic drainage pattern is an essential step in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) procedure. In oral cancer, identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) can be challenging. In this study, interobserver variability in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams was evaluated in patients with T1-T2 stage N0 oral cancer. METHODS: Sixteen observers (head and neck surgeons, nuclear medicine physicians or teams of both) from various institutes were asked which criteria they use to consider a hot focus on the lymphoscintigram as SLN. Lymphoscintigrams of 9 patients with 47 hot foci (3-9 per patient) were assessed, using a scale of 'yes/equivocal/no'. Bilateral drainage was seen in four of nine cases. In three cases additional late single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT scanning was performed. Interobserver variability was evaluated by kappa (к) analysis, using linear weighted pairwise comparison of the observers. Conservative (equivocal analysed as no) and sensitive (equivocal analysed as yes) assessment strategies were investigated using pairwise kappa analysis. RESULTS: Various definitions of SLN on lymphoscintigrams were given. Interobserver variability of all cases using a 3-point scale showed fair agreement (71%, к(w) = 0.29). The conservative and sensitive analyses both showed moderate agreement: conservative approach к = 0.44 (in 80% of the hot foci the observers agreed) and sensitive approach к = 0.42 (81%) respectively. Multidisciplinary involvement in image interpretation and higher levels of observer experience appeared to increase agreement. CONCLUSION: Among 16 observers, there is practice variation in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams in oral cancer patients. Interobserver variability of lymphoscintigraphic interpretation shows moderate agreement. In order to achieve better agreement in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams specific guidelines are warranted.
PURPOSE: Lymphoscintigraphic imaging and adequate interpretation of the lymphatic drainage pattern is an essential step in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) procedure. In oral cancer, identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) can be challenging. In this study, interobserver variability in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams was evaluated in patients with T1-T2 stage N0 oral cancer. METHODS: Sixteen observers (head and neck surgeons, nuclear medicine physicians or teams of both) from various institutes were asked which criteria they use to consider a hot focus on the lymphoscintigram as SLN. Lymphoscintigrams of 9 patients with 47 hot foci (3-9 per patient) were assessed, using a scale of 'yes/equivocal/no'. Bilateral drainage was seen in four of nine cases. In three cases additional late single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT scanning was performed. Interobserver variability was evaluated by kappa (к) analysis, using linear weighted pairwise comparison of the observers. Conservative (equivocal analysed as no) and sensitive (equivocal analysed as yes) assessment strategies were investigated using pairwise kappa analysis. RESULTS: Various definitions of SLN on lymphoscintigrams were given. Interobserver variability of all cases using a 3-point scale showed fair agreement (71%, к(w) = 0.29). The conservative and sensitive analyses both showed moderate agreement: conservative approach к = 0.44 (in 80% of the hot foci the observers agreed) and sensitive approach к = 0.42 (81%) respectively. Multidisciplinary involvement in image interpretation and higher levels of observer experience appeared to increase agreement. CONCLUSION: Among 16 observers, there is practice variation in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams in oral cancerpatients. Interobserver variability of lymphoscintigraphic interpretation shows moderate agreement. In order to achieve better agreement in defining SLNs on lymphoscintigrams specific guidelines are warranted.
Authors: G L Ross; T Shoaib; D S Soutar; D G MacDonald; I G Camilleri; R G Bessent; H W Gray Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Francisco J Civantos; Robert P Zitsch; David E Schuller; Amit Agrawal; Russell B Smith; Richard Nason; Guy Petruzelli; Christine G Gourin; Richard J Wong; Robert L Ferris; Adel El Naggar; John A Ridge; Randal C Paniello; Kouros Owzar; Linda McCall; Douglas B Chepeha; Wendell G Yarbrough; Jeffrey N Myers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Derrek A Heuveling; Géke B Flach; Annelies van Schie; Stijn van Weert; K Hakki Karagozoglu; Elisabeth Bloemena; C René Leemans; Remco de Bree Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Lee W T Alkureishi; Zeynep Burak; Julio A Alvarez; James Ballinger; Anders Bilde; Alan J Britten; Luca Calabrese; Carlo Chiesa; Arturo Chiti; Remco de Bree; Harry W Gray; Keith Hunter; Adorjan F Kovacs; Michael Lassmann; C Rene Leemans; Gerard Mamelle; Mark McGurk; Jann Mortensen; Tito Poli; Taimur Shoaib; Philip Sloan; Jens A Sorensen; Sandro J Stoeckli; Jorn B Thomsen; Giusepe Trifiro; Jochen Werner; Gary L Ross Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Domenico Rubello; Patrick M Colletti; Remco de Bree; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rutger Mahieu; Dominique N V Donders; Gerard C Krijger; F F Tessa Ververs; Remmert de Roos; John L M M Bemelmans; Rob van Rooij; Remco de Bree; Bart de Keizer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Inne J den Toom; Annelies van Schie; Stijn van Weert; K Hakki Karagozoglu; Elisabeth Bloemena; Otto S Hoekstra; Remco de Bree Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Inne J Den Toom; Elisabeth Bloemena; Stijn van Weert; K Hakki Karagozoglu; Otto S Hoekstra; Remco de Bree Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Inne J den Toom; Rutger Mahieu; Rob van Rooij; Robert J J van Es; Monique G G Hobbelink; Gerard C Krijger; Bernard M Tijink; Bart de Keizer; Remco de Bree Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 9.236