Sentinel lymph nodes in a @entity1707 model with XXXX : contrast-enhanced lymphatic US.

@entity1707 @entity320 @entity3 @entity72358
PURPOSE: To determine if lymphatic channels and sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) with and without @entity3 can be detected with lymphatic ultrasonography (US) after peritumoral injection of a US contrast agent and to determine if lymphatic US can be used to assess SLNs for the presence of metastatic infiltration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six @entity1707 with 17 @entity320 were evaluated. Conventional gray-scale, color flow, and gray-scale phase-inversion harmonic US examinations were performed. A US contrast agent was administered in four sites around each @entity320 (1-mL total dose). Lymphoscintigraphy was followed by injection of a blue dye and then dissection. SLNs identified at lymphatic US were characterized by two readers in consensus as normal or as having @entity3 ; results were compared with histologic findings. Statistical analyses included the sign test and the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Lymphatic US depicted 28 SLNs, while lymphoscintigraphy depicted 27 "hot spots" suspected of representing SLNs (including two false-positive findings). Dissection after blue dye injection helped identify 31 SLNs. There were no false-positive US findings for @entity72358 detection. Five of six nodes not seen with lymphoscintigraphy were detected with lymphatic US. The accuracy of @entity72358 detection was 90% (28 of 31) for lymphatic US and 81% (25 of 31) for lymphoscintigraphy (P =.29). Lymphatic US correctly depicted @entity3 in 19 of 20 SLNs, and five of the eight normal SLNs were correctly characterized, with an accuracy of 86% (kappa = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Detection of SLNs with lymphatic US compared favorably with that at lymphoscintigraphy. Lymphatic US can depict @entity3 within the @entity72358 , which was not possible with lymphoscintigraphy.
