Responses

Download PDFPDF

How morphometric analysis of metastatic load predicts the (un)usefulness of PET scanning: the case of lymph node staging in melanoma
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Resolution

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Author's Reply

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    From scientific approach to technical details

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.