PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Comparing CT and fluorescence to find lymph nodes in dogs with skin

By Alvarez-Sanchez, Alejandro et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2023·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Comparison of indirect computed tomographic lymphography and near-infrared fluorescence sentinel lymph node mapping for integumentary canine mast cell tumors.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of 20 dogs with skin tumors called mast cell tumors (MCT) underwent special imaging tests to check if the cancer had spread to nearby lymph nodes. The tests used were indirect computed tomographic lymphography (ICTL) and near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) mapping. Results showed that both methods agreed on detecting sentinel lymph nodes in 80% of the dogs, but lymph node metastasis was found in 95% of the cases, even in tumors that were mostly low-grade. This suggests that combining these imaging techniques can effectively identify lymph node involvement in dogs with MCT.

People also search for: dog mast cell tumor treatment · lymph node cancer in dogs · sentinel lymph node mapping for dogs

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the independent and combined use of indirect computed tomographic lymphography (ICTL) and near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) for sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in dogs with integumentary mast cell tumors (MCT) and report the metastatic LN rate. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Twenty client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs underwent preoperative ICTL, then intraoperative NIRF SLN mapping and excision of the anatomic lymph node (ALN) and/or SLN, and primary MCT. Technique agreement was complete if the same SLN was detected, and partial if the same SLN was detected along with additional SLN. No agreement occurred if the techniques detected different or no SLN. MCT were graded using two- and three-tier schemes, and LN were graded from HN0-3; HN2-3 were considered metastatic. RESULTS: Complete, partial, and no agreement between ICTL and NIRF was seen in 8/20 (40%), 8/20 (40%), and 4/20 (20%) dogs, respectively. Detection of ICTL-SLN and NIRF-SLN failed in 1/20 (5%) and 4/20 (20%), respectively. Tumors were grade II/low-grade in 19/20 (95%) and grade III/high-grade in 1/20 (5%) dogs. Nineteen out of 20 (95%) dogs had HN2-3 LN. CONCLUSIONS: Technique agreement of at least one SLN was seen in 16/20 (80%) dogs. Although most MCT were classified as intermediate to low grade, LN metastases were commonly detected. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Combining ICTL and NIRF for MCT SLN mapping yields high SLN detection rates. Lymph node metastasis may be more common than previously reported for intermediate to low grade MCT.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36574349/