Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 18 April 2016
- Published on: 18 April 2016
- Published on: 18 April 2016
- Published on: 18 April 2016ResolutionShow More
Dear Editor
In the results you mentioned that metastases couldn't be detected by PET because they were to small. I don't understand how this has anything to do with the resolution or collimation of the PET scanner. The resolution is something that is part of the scanner and has to do with the "pictures" that come out. Large detectors can also detect small abnormalities. Isn't detectabilty in PET scanning more depen...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 18 April 2016Author's ReplyShow More
Dear Editor
We thank Dr Belhocine for his interest in and response to our article “How morphometric analysis of metastatic load predicts the (un)usefulness of PET-scanning: the case of lymph node staging in melanoma”.[1]
The study includes 308 primary melanoma patients undergoing wide local excision and sentinel node biopsy, without palpable regional lymph nodes or evidence of distant relapse. All patients...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 18 April 2016From scientific approach to technical detailsShow More
Dear Editor
I read with great interest the paper of Mijnhout et al.[1] I also appreciated the scientific approach of the study. The main conclusion of this article showing the inability of 18FDG PET to detect sentinel node micrometastases are in line with recent studies by Wagner JD et al.[2,3], Acland KM et al.[4], Kokoska MS et al.[5], Crippa F et al.[6], and more recently Longo MI...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.