A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Patterns of enlarged lymph nodes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. | LitMetric

Objective: We reviewed the imaging studies of patients with known metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in order to more accurately assess where retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy occurs.

Methods: The database of patients with metastatic RCC was reviewed and 101 patients were found from 2002 to 2006. Each patient's CT scans were then reviewed. Twenty-seven retroperitoneal sections were defined for each patient, with 3 positions in each of the x-, y-, and z-axis. Lymph nodes greater than 1 cm were then counted for each section.

Results: Of the 101 patients, 31, of whom 28 qualified, were found to have retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy of a least 1 cm or greater. Two-thirds of nodes (87 out of 124) exhibited a suprahilar, intra-aortocaval, and retro-aortocaval trend of lymph node enlargement. Three patients (11%) had isolated infrahilar nodes, while 8 patients (29%) exhibited a skip lesion pattern by imaging criteria. Only 4 patients (14%) were noted to have lymph nodes that were confined to the ipsilateral (paraaortic or paracaval) nodes in the perihilar and infrahilar region, which would be readily accessible during renal surgery.

Conclusions: Lymphatic drainage in RCC is ill-defined, likely due to multiple lymphatic outflow channels. However, after a review of retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy imaging in patients with known metastatic RCC, there does seem to be a cephalad, posterior, and medial drainage pattern.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.10.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients metastatic
16
lymph nodes
12
retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy
12
patients
9
nodes patients
8
metastatic renal
8
renal cell
8
cell carcinoma
8
metastatic rcc
8
101 patients
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!