FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4295679083> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4295679083 abstract "Abstract Background The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT) and planar lymphoscintigraphy (PL) in patients with primary breast cancer, undergoing lymphoscintigraphy at initial staging. Specifically, we assessed the detection rate (DR) for sentinel lymph node (SLN), the absolute number of detected SLNs by each technique, and the proportion of patients with additional SLNs detected by one technique compared to the other one. Finally, we aimed to evaluate the impact of SPECT/CT on the surgical approach. Methods Original articles, providing a head-to-head comparison between SPECT/CT and PL, including patients with primary breast cancer at first presentation, were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases through March 31 st , 2022. The DR of the imaging techniques was calculated on a per-patient analysis; studies were pooled on their odds ratios (ORs) with a random-effects model to assess the presence of a significant difference between the DRs of SPECT/CT and PL. The number of additional SLNs, calculated as relative risk (RR), and the pooled proportion of patients with additional SLNs using one imaging technique rather than the other one were investigated. The pooled ratio of surgical procedures (SLN harvesting) influenced by the use of SPECT/CT, according to the surgeons, was calculated. Results Sixteen studies with 2693 patients were eligible for the calculation of the DR of SPECT/CT and PL. The DR was 92.11% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 89.32–94.50%] for SPECT/CT, and 85.12% (95% CI 80.58–89.15%) for PL, with an OR of 1.96 (95% CI 1.51–2.55) in favor of SPECT/CT. There was a relative risk of detection of larger number of SLNs (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.14–1.32; 12 studies; 979 patients) for SPECT/CT ( n = 3983) compared to PL ( n = 3321) and a significant proportion of patients with additional SLNs detected by SPECT/CT, which were missed by PL (18.88%, 95% CI: 11.72%-27.27%; 13 studies). Four articles, with a total number of 1427 patients, revealed that 23.98% of the surgical procedures benefited from the use of SPECT/CT. Conclusions This meta-analysis favors SPECT/CT over PL for the identification of SLN in patients with primary breast cancer at staging due to higher DR, more SLNs depicted, and a significant proportion of subjects with additional detected SLNs by SPECT/CT compared to PL. Furthermore, SPECT/CT positively influences the surgical procedure. However, PL remains a satisfactory imaging option for imaging departments not equipped with SPECT/CT due to its good patient-based DR." @default.
• W4295679083 created "2022-09-14" @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5006232279 @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5020586666 @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5071103515 @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5076675408 @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5089013882 @default.
• W4295679083 creator A5090165467 @default.
• W4295679083 date "2022-09-14" @default.
• W4295679083 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4295679083 title "99mTc-labeled colloid SPECT/CT versus planar lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel lymph node detection in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis" @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1229824984 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1568037311 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1867315011 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1970498850 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1971779639 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1975373334 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1983770143 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W1999762746 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2001362027 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2031940246 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2079174392 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2080986667 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2089516254 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2092522041 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2095616771 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2097918005 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2100597096 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2102330657 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2102813052 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2107638293 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2108024249 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2114064598 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2115527491 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2117306243 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2120113382 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2131719808 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2161911084 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2253311382 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2298854859 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2327724249 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2415555959 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2485001868 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2530701483 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2564935309 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2606382663 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2760871957 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2807463182 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2884353836 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2951488840 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2980478188 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W2998065682 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W3028981786 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W3031681524 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W3111541795 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W3144478439 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W3193329895 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W4210715422 @default.
• W4295679083 cites W73844739 @default.
• W4295679083 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-022-00524-6" @default.
• W4295679083 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4295679083 type Work @default.
• W4295679083 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4295679083 countsByYear W42956790832023 @default.
• W4295679083 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5006232279 @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5020586666 @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5071103515 @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5076675408 @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5089013882 @default.
• W4295679083 hasAuthorship W4295679083A5090165467 @default.
• W4295679083 hasBestOaLocation W42956790831 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C2775842073 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C2778064278 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C2780212769 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C121608353 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C126322002 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C126838900 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C156957248 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C2775842073 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C2778064278 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C2780212769 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C2780849966 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C2989005 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C44249647 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C530470458 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C71924100 @default.
• W4295679083 hasConceptScore W4295679083C95190672 @default.
• W4295679083 hasLocation W42956790831 @default.
• W4295679083 hasOpenAccess W4295679083 @default.

• next