Evaluation of the diagnostic value of Sentinel Lymph Node in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Q3 Medicine
Ramin Sadeghi, Reza Taheri, Ali Jangjoo, Akbar Pakdel, Mohammad-Hassan Arjmand, Mohammad Reza Motiei, Bahram Memar, Mohsen Aliakbarian
{"title":"Evaluation of the diagnostic value of Sentinel Lymph Node in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.","authors":"Ramin Sadeghi, Reza Taheri, Ali Jangjoo, Akbar Pakdel, Mohammad-Hassan Arjmand, Mohammad Reza Motiei, Bahram Memar, Mohsen Aliakbarian","doi":"10.22038/AOJNMB.2023.70461.1491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been proven as a safe and efficient procedure in some cancers like breast cancer and melanoma with a reduction of complications and side effects of unnecessary lymphadenectomy in many patients. However, the diagnostic value of SLNB in gastric cancer is a point of debate. This study evaluated the diagnostic value of SLNB using radiotracer and isosulphan blue dye injection in patients with Gastric Adenocarcinomas (GA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This descriptive study was performed at Imam-Reza HOSPITAL on 39 patients diagnosed with GA with no lymphatic metastasis using two methods: the combination of radionuclide with isosulphan together (R&I) method compared with the isosulphan alone method. Lymphatic dissection was performed in all patients. The pathological results were compared between the sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) and other lymph nodes and their accordance rate was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the T1 group, the sentinel lymph node biopsy detection rate was 100% for the combination of the R&I method and 60% for the isosulphan method and the false negative rate was zero. These values respectively were 88.8% and 88.8% in the T2 group with a false negative rate of 75%. In the T3 group, the values were 100% for the combination of the R&I method and 93.7% for the isosulphan method with a false negative rate of 40%. In the combination of the R&I method, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 57.9, 100, 100, and 69.2 percent respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the false negative rate (47.4%), SLNB by injection of isosulphan blue dye alone is not a diagnostic enough value for predicting lymph node metastasis in GA. Although, SLNB by combination of the R&I had better accuracy compared to the isosulphan alone, more studies with larger samples are needed to prove this result.</p>","PeriodicalId":8503,"journal":{"name":"Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology","volume":"12 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10757058/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/AOJNMB.2023.70461.1491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been proven as a safe and efficient procedure in some cancers like breast cancer and melanoma with a reduction of complications and side effects of unnecessary lymphadenectomy in many patients. However, the diagnostic value of SLNB in gastric cancer is a point of debate. This study evaluated the diagnostic value of SLNB using radiotracer and isosulphan blue dye injection in patients with Gastric Adenocarcinomas (GA).

Methods: This descriptive study was performed at Imam-Reza HOSPITAL on 39 patients diagnosed with GA with no lymphatic metastasis using two methods: the combination of radionuclide with isosulphan together (R&I) method compared with the isosulphan alone method. Lymphatic dissection was performed in all patients. The pathological results were compared between the sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) and other lymph nodes and their accordance rate was calculated.

Results: In the T1 group, the sentinel lymph node biopsy detection rate was 100% for the combination of the R&I method and 60% for the isosulphan method and the false negative rate was zero. These values respectively were 88.8% and 88.8% in the T2 group with a false negative rate of 75%. In the T3 group, the values were 100% for the combination of the R&I method and 93.7% for the isosulphan method with a false negative rate of 40%. In the combination of the R&I method, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 57.9, 100, 100, and 69.2 percent respectively.

Conclusion: Based on the false negative rate (47.4%), SLNB by injection of isosulphan blue dye alone is not a diagnostic enough value for predicting lymph node metastasis in GA. Although, SLNB by combination of the R&I had better accuracy compared to the isosulphan alone, more studies with larger samples are needed to prove this result.

评估前哨淋巴结对胃腺癌患者的诊断价值。
目的:前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)已被证实是乳腺癌和黑色素瘤等癌症的一种安全有效的检查方法,可减少许多患者不必要的淋巴结切除术所带来的并发症和副作用。然而,SLNB 在胃癌中的诊断价值还存在争议。本研究评估了使用放射性示踪剂和异石杉碱蓝染料注射对胃腺癌(GA)患者进行 SLNB 的诊断价值:这项描述性研究是在伊玛目-礼萨医院(Imam-Reza HOSPITAL)对 39 名确诊为无淋巴转移的胃腺癌患者进行的,采用了两种方法:将放射性核素与异舒兰蓝联合使用的方法(R&I)与单独使用异舒兰蓝的方法进行比较。所有患者都进行了淋巴清扫。比较前哨淋巴结(SLN)和其他淋巴结的病理结果,并计算其符合率:在 T1 组中,R&I 组合法的前哨淋巴结活检检出率为 100%,isosulphan 法为 60%,假阴性率为零。T2组的这一数值分别为88.8%和88.8%,假阴性率为75%。在 T3 组中,R&I 组合方法的数值为 100%,异舒芬方法的数值为 93.7%,假阴性率为 40%。在 R&I 组合方法中,灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 57.9%、100%、100% 和 69.2%:从假阴性率(47.4%)来看,单纯注射异舒凡蓝染料进行 SLNB 对预测 GA 淋巴结转移的诊断价值不足。虽然联合使用 R&I 进行 SLNB 比单独使用异舒凡的准确性更高,但还需要更多的研究和更大的样本来证明这一结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信