PURPOSE: To retrospectively study the influence of nodal tumour burden on lymphoscintigraphic imaging in 509 consecutive patients with melanomas. METHODS: Bidirectional lymphatic drainage, the clear depiction of an afferent lymphatic vessel, time to depiction of the first sentinel lymph node (SLN) and number of depicted and excised nodes were recorded. Nodal tumour load was classified as SLN-negative, SLN micrometastases or macrometastases. RESULTS: In the overall population, using multivariate regression analysis, a short SLN depiction time was significantly associated with the depiction of a greater number of radioactive nodes, a short distance between the primary tumour site and the nodal basin, younger age and lower nodal tumour burden. The proportion of patients with clear depiction of an afferent lymphatic vessel depended on the nodal tumour load (46% in SLN-negative patients, 57% in SLN positive patients, and 69% in patients with macrometastases; P = 0.009). Macrometastasis was significantly associated with delayed depiction of the first radioactive node and a greater number of depicted hotspots. In patients with clinically nonsuspicious nodes, i.e. the classical target group for SLN biopsy, clear depiction of an afferent vessel was significantly associated with a higher number of SLNs during dynamic acquisition, SLN micrometastasis and a higher overall number of metastatic lymph nodes after SLN biopsy plus completion lymphadenectomy. The excision of more than two SLNs did not increase the metastasis detection rate. In patients with bidirectional or tridirectional lymphatic drainage, the SLN positivity rates for the first, second and third basin were 25.4%, 11.7% and 0.0 %, respectively (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically nonsuspicious lymph nodes, clear depiction of an afferent lymph vessel may be a sign of micrometastasis. Macrometastasis is associated with prominent afferent vessels, delayed depiction of the first radioactive node and a higher number of depicted hotspots.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively study the influence of nodal tumour burden on lymphoscintigraphic imaging in 509 consecutive patients with melanomas. METHODS: Bidirectional lymphatic drainage, the clear depiction of an afferent lymphatic vessel, time to depiction of the first sentinel lymph node (SLN) and number of depicted and excised nodes were recorded. Nodal tumour load was classified as SLN-negative, SLN micrometastases or macrometastases. RESULTS: In the overall population, using multivariate regression analysis, a short SLN depiction time was significantly associated with the depiction of a greater number of radioactive nodes, a short distance between the primary tumour site and the nodal basin, younger age and lower nodal tumour burden. The proportion of patients with clear depiction of an afferent lymphatic vessel depended on the nodal tumour load (46% in SLN-negative patients, 57% in SLN positive patients, and 69% in patients with macrometastases; P = 0.009). Macrometastasis was significantly associated with delayed depiction of the first radioactive node and a greater number of depicted hotspots. In patients with clinically nonsuspicious nodes, i.e. the classical target group for SLN biopsy, clear depiction of an afferent vessel was significantly associated with a higher number of SLNs during dynamic acquisition, SLN micrometastasis and a higher overall number of metastatic lymph nodes after SLN biopsy plus completion lymphadenectomy. The excision of more than two SLNs did not increase the metastasis detection rate. In patients with bidirectional or tridirectional lymphatic drainage, the SLN positivity rates for the first, second and third basin were 25.4%, 11.7% and 0.0 %, respectively (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically nonsuspicious lymph nodes, clear depiction of an afferent lymph vessel may be a sign of micrometastasis. Macrometastasis is associated with prominent afferent vessels, delayed depiction of the first radioactive node and a higher number of depicted hotspots.
Authors: L Jansen; O E Nieweg; A E Kapteijn; R A Valdés Olmos; S H Muller; C A Hoefnagel; B B Kroon Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2000-09 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: H Vogt; M Schmidt; R Bares; W Brenner; F Grünwald; J Kopp; C Reiners; O Schober; C Schümichen; H Schicha; J Sciuk; F Sudbrock; H Wengenmair Journal: Nuklearmedizin Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 1.379
Authors: S Cammilleri; T Jacob; M C Rojat-Habib; S Hesse; B Berthet; R Giorgi; J J Bonerandi; O Mundler Journal: Bull Cancer Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.276
Authors: Christina Mitteldorf; Hans P Bertsch; Antonia Zapf; Christine Neumann; Lutz Kretschmer Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Carsten-Oliver Sahlmann; Pavel Bardzik; Christina Mitteldorf; Hans-Joachim Helms; Johannes Meller; Michael Peter Schön; Hans Peter Bertsch Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Viktor Schnabel; Christian Kromer; Christoph Bauer-Büntzel; Annika Richter; Felix Bremmer; Fabian Kück; Katharina Julius; Christina Mitteldorf; Michael P Schön Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Christina Mitteldorf; Simin Hellriegel; Andreas Leha; Alexander Fichtner; Philipp Ströbel; Michael P Schön; Felix Bremmer Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 7.842