Search

Abstract Background There are no studies that have directly investigated the incremental reduction in sensory morbidity that lymphoscintigraphy images (LS) and triangulated body marking or other skin marking techniques provide during sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) compared to using only the probe without LS and skin marking or using only dye. However, an indirect assessment of this potential for additional sensory morbidity reduction is possible by extracting morbidity data from studies comparing the morbidity of SLNB to that of axillary lymph node dissection. Methods A literature search yielded 13 articles that had data on sensory morbidity at specific time points on pain, numbness or paresthesia from SLNB that used radiotracer and probe or used only dye as a primary method of finding the sentinel node (SN). Of these, 10 utilized LS, while 3 did not utilize LS. By matching the data in studies not employing LS to the studies that did, comparisons regarding the percentage of patients experiencing pain, numbness/paresthesia after SLNB could be reasonably attempted at a cutoff of 9 months. Results In the 7 studies reporting on pain after 9 months (> 9 months) that used LS (1347 patients), 13.8% of patients reported these symptoms, while in the one study that did not use LS (143 patients), 28.7% of patients reported these symptoms at > 9 months (P < 0.0001). In the 6 studies reporting on numbness and/or paresthesia at > 9 months that used LS (601 patients), 12.5% of patients reported these symptoms, while in the 3 studies that did not use LS (229 patients), 23.1% of patients reported these symptoms at > 9 months (P = 0.0002). Similar trends were also noted for all these symptoms at ≤ 9 months. Conclusion Because of variations in techniques and time of assessing morbidity, direct comparisons between studies are difficult. Nevertheless at a minimum, a clear trend is present: having the LS images and skin markings to assist during SLNB appears to yield more favorable morbidity outcomes for the patients compared to performing SLNB with only the probe or performing SLNB with dye alone. These results are extremely pertinent, as the main reason for performing SLNB itself in the first place is to achieve reduced morbidity.

Objective. Our objective was to compare the accuracy of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in detecting cervical nodal metastases in patients treated with neck dissection and to scrutinize the ability of each modality to determine nodal stage. Study Design. Case series with chart review. Setting. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Subjects and Methods. Patients who underwent neck dissection at our institution for primary treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and had received preoperative PET/CT and CECT were included in this study. Imaging studies were reinterpreted by 3 specialists within the field and compared for interreader agreement. Concordance between radiology and histopathology was measured using neck levels and sides, along with patient nodal stage. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and agreement coefficients were calculated. Results. Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Sensitivity was 0.69 and 0.94 (level and side) for PET/CT vs 0.53 and 0.66 for CECT (P = .056, P = .001). Specificity was 0.86 and 0.56 for PET/CT vs 0.91 and 0.76 for CECT (P = .014, P = .024). No significant difference was found in overall accuracy (P = .33, P = .88). The overall agreement percentages between N stage called by imaging modality and pathology were 52% and 55% for PET/CT and CECT, respectively. Conclusion. No significant difference in sensitivity was found between PET/CT and CECT. CECTwas found to have superior specificity compared with PET/CT. The information gleaned from each modality in the pretreatment evaluation of HNSCC appears to be complementary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asthma and pulmonary embolism (PE) can present with overlapping symptoms, and distinguishing between these 2 conditions can be challenging. Asthma may limit imaging for PE because of either worsened ventilation defects on ventilation-perfusion scanning (VQ) or increased motion artifacts on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Methods: We identified adults evaluated for PE with VQ or CTPA from 2012 to 2016. Patients with chronic lung disease (other than asthma) were excluded. Studies were classified as negative, positive, or nondiagnostic. Follow-up of negative cases was reviewed to determine the rate of repeat exams (within 1 wk) and the false-negative rate (defined as diagnosis of venous thromboembolism within 90 d). Results: We reviewed 19,412 adults (aged 52 ± 18 y, 70% women) evaluated for PE (60% with VQ, 40% with CTPA); 23% had a history of asthma. Nondiagnostic results were comparable for those with and without asthma for both VQ (asthma, 3.3%; nonasthma, 3.8%; P = 0.223) and CTPA (asthma, 1.6%; nonasthma, 1.5%; P = 0.891). A history of asthma was not associated with a higher rate of repeat exams after negative imaging for VQ (asthma, 1.9%; nonasthma, 2.1%; P = 0.547) or CTPA (asthma, 0.6%; nonasthma, 0.6%; P = 0.796), nor was a history of asthma associated with a higher false-negative rate for VQ (asthma, 0.4%; nonasthma, 0.9%; P = 0.015) or CTPA (asthma, 1.9%; nonasthma 1.5%; P = 0.347). Conclusion: A history of asthma in the preceding 10 y was not associated with impaired diagnostic performance of PE imaging for either VQ or CTPA., (© 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Objective Our objective was to compare the accuracy of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in detecting cervical nodal metastases in patients treated with neck dissection and to scrutinize the ability of each modality to determine nodal stage. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Subjects and Methods Patients who underwent neck dissection at our institution for primary treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and had received preoperative PET/CT and CECT were included in this study. Imaging studies were reinterpreted by 3 specialists within the field and compared for interreader agreement. Concordance between radiology and histopathology was measured using neck levels and sides, along with patient nodal stage. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and agreement coefficients were calculated. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Sensitivity was 0.69 and 0.94 (level and side) for PET/CT vs 0.53 and 0.66 for CECT ( P = .056, P = .001). Specificity was 0.86 and 0.56 for PET/CT vs 0.91 and 0.76 for CECT ( P = .014, P = .024). No significant difference was found in overall accuracy ( P = .33, P = .88). The overall agreement percentages between N stage called by imaging modality and pathology were 52% and 55% for PET/CT and CECT, respectively. Conclusion No significant difference in sensitivity was found between PET/CT and CECT. CECT was found to have superior specificity compared with PET/CT. The information gleaned from each modality in the pretreatment evaluation of HNSCC appears to be complementary.