The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective Study of Fluorodeoxyglucose–Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Lymph Node Basins in Melanoma Patients Undergoing Sentinel Node Biopsy
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of regional lymph node basins to sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I, II, and III melanoma localized to the skin. METHODS: Patients with cutaneous melanoma with Breslow's depth greater than 1 mm (AJCC T2-4N0M0) or localized regional cutaneous recurrence (TxN2bM0) underwent whole-body imaging of glucose metabolism with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET followed by SNB. PET scans were interpreted in a blinded fashion and compared with histologic analyses of SNB specimens and clinical follow-up examination. Nodal tumor volumes were estimated. RESULTS: Eighty-nine lymph node basins were evaluated by FDG-PET and SNB in 70 assessable patients. Eighteen patients (25.7%) had lymph node metastases at the time of FDG-PET imaging: 17 proved by SNB (24.3%) and one by follow-up examination (1.4%). Median tumor volume in positive sentinel node basins was 4.3 mm 3 (range, 0.07 to 523 mm 3). Sensitivity of SNB for detection of occult regional lymph node metastases was 94.4%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 100%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.6%. Sensitivity of FDG-PET was 16.7%, specificity was 95.8%, PPV was 50%, and NPV was 81.9%. At a median follow-up duration of 16.6 months, seven patients (10%) developed recurrent disease. PET predicted one recurrence (14.3%) in a node basin missed by SNB. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is an insensitive indicator of occult regional lymph node metastases in patients with melanoma because of the minute tumor volumes in this population. FDG-PET does not have a primary role for staging regional nodes in patients with clinically localized melanoma.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(2001) · PubMed · Cited by 943
Marsden, J. R., Newton-Bishop, J. A., Burrows, L., Cook, M., Corrie, P. G., Cox, N. H., Gore, M. E., Lorigan, P., MacKie, R., Nathan, P., et al. (2010) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09883.x · Cited by 396
Blodgett, T. M., Meltzer, C. C., & Townsend, D. W. (2007) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2422051113 · Cited by 387
Bar-Shalom, R., Valdivia, A. Y., & Blaufox, M. D. (2000) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/snuc.2000.7439 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, J. D., Schauwecker, D., Davidson, D., Coleman III, J. J., Saxman, S., Hutchins, G., Love, C., & Hayes, J. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1508-1508
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1868973394
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective Study of Fluorodeoxyglucose–Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Lymph Node Basins in Melanoma Patients Undergoing Sentinel Node Biopsy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1999.17.5.1508
- The paper
- Wagner, J. D., Schauwecker, D., Davidson, D., Coleman III, J. J., Saxman, S., Hutchins, G., Love, C., & Hayes, J. T. (1999). Prospective Study of Fluorodeoxyglucose–Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Lymph Node Basins in Melanoma Patients Undergoing Sentinel Node Biopsy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.5.1508
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.