ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2014
Practice variation in defining sentinel lymph nodes on lymphoscintigrams in oral cancer patients.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy for oral squamous cell carcinoma: Current evidence and future challenges.Head & neck · 2023Review
- Within-patient comparison between [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a streamlined sentinel lymph-node imaging protocol in early-stage oral cancer.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2021Article
- Sentinel lymph node detection in oral cancer: a within-patient comparison between [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- The added value of SPECT-CT for the identification of sentinel lymph nodes in early stage oral cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Additional non-sentinel lymph node metastases in early oral cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Article
- Sentinel lymph node biopsy in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: current status and unresolved challenges.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLymphoscintigraphic 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.
methodsSixteen 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.
resultsVarious 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.
conclusionAmong 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25002031What 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.