Comparison between 18F-FDG PET (PET/CT) and sentinel lymph node biopsy in the detection of regional lymph node metastasis of various malignancies: review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviewed comparative studies of the use of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for the detection of regional lymph node metastasis in patients with various malignancies. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET (PET/CT) compared with SLNB to determine the presence or absence of regional lymph node metastasis. In this paper, we review 15 comparative studies of breast tumors and 17 comparative studies of melanomas that used these methods to detect regional lymph node metastasis. Original articles for other malignancies, including oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma, penile carcinoma, anal cancer, and cervical cancer, are relatively scarce. A consensus has been reached in the literature that SLNB is much more sensitive than 18 F-FDG PET and PET/CT for detecting small lymph node metastasis. 18 F-FDG PET and PET/CT cannot replace SLNB for the evaluation of early-stage regional lymphatic tumor dissemination in this patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".