Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nazarian, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mastrangelo, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nazarian, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mastrangelo, M.

Radiology, Vol 199, 273-277, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Malignant melanoma: impact of superficial US on management

LN Nazarian, AA Alexander, NM Rawool, AB Kurtz, HC Maguire and MJ Mastrangelo
Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107-5244, USA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of superficial ultrasonography (US) on clinical management of melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Superficial US in areas at high risk for local recurrence or nodal metastases was performed in 33 patients with cutaneous melanoma. Impact categories were assigned to each US study (n = 55): category 3, US added information that altered clinical management; category 2, US added information that did not change management; category 1, no added information and management unchanged; category 0, not helpful or was misleading. RESULTS: Twenty-two US studies (40%) were category 3: detection of nonpalpable metastases altered surgical therapy (n = 2), demonstration of pharmacodynamic response to chemotherapy (n = 5), and determination of benignancy or malignancy (n = 15). Nine (16%) were category 2: identification of nonpalpable metastases did not alter management. Twenty-two (40%) were category 1: supported clinical impression of no metastases (n = 18) or helped confirm cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal metastases (n = 4). Two (4%) were category 0: missed proved metastases. CONCLUSION: Superficial US affected management of melanoma by allowing detection and characterization of masses, guidance of biopsy, and assessment of pharmacodynamic response.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch DermatolHome page
P. Saiag, M. Bernard, A. Beauchet, M.-L. Bafounta, I. Bourgault-Villada, and S. Chagnon
Ultrasonography Using Simple Diagnostic Criteria vs Palpation for the Detection of Regional Lymph Node Metastases of Melanoma
Arch Dermatol, February 1, 2005; 141(2): 183 - 189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch DermatolHome page
M.-H. Schmid-Wendtner, K. Partscht, H. C. Korting, and M. Volkenandt
Improved Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lymphadenopathy in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma by Contrast-Enhanced Color Doppler Sonography
Arch Dermatol, April 1, 2002; 138(4): 491 - 497.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.