4.5 Article

Measurement of cutaneous lymphatic flow rates in patients with skin cancer: area extraction method

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 498-504

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.12506

关键词

Tc-99m-phytate; lymphatic flow rate; lymphoscintigraphy; scintigraphic appearance time; skin cancer

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [24591625]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24591625, 26461655] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some recent reports have revealed that the long scintigraphic appearance time (SAT), defined as the time between radionuclide injection and first sentinel lymph node (SLN) visualization in lymphoscintigraphy, is a negative predictive parameter of nodal metastasis in patients with melanoma. However, most of the methods used to measure the SAT were ambiguous because they utilized visualization in lymphoscintigraphy. We herein introduce a novel method by which to measure the SAT and lymphatic flow rate. The data of 33 patients with primary skin cancer were used. Sequential images were obtained using dynamic lymphoscintigraphy, and a time-activity curve of the SLN was created. The time at which the counts reached plateau was newly defined as an alternative to the SAT and was termed the scintigraphic saturation time (SST). The figure obtained by division of the distance by the SST was newly defined as an alternative to the lymphatic flow rate and termed the lymphatic transit rate (LTR). The SST was clearly determined. It ranged from 220 to 1430 s (mean, 805 s). Pathological examination revealed nodal metastasis in five patients. In 28 patients without metastasis, the mean LTR was in the order of lower limbs (4.07 + 0.35 cm/min), upper limbs (2.67 + 0.33 cm/min), trunk (1.79 + 0.47 cm/min), and head and neck (1.11 +/- 0.22 cm/min). The LTRs were higher in patients with nodal metastasis than those without. This method may be effective for accurate measurement of the SAT and lymphatic flow rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据