ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2011
The diagnostic value of adding dynamic scintigraphy to standard delayed planar imaging for sentinel node identification in melanoma patients.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Article
- EANM practice guidelines for lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe 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.
methodsThree 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.
resultsA 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%).
conclusionFor 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21847637What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.