Validity of sentinel node biopsy in early oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma

Riese, C.G.U.; Karstadt, J.-A.; Schramm, A.; Güleryüz, S.; Dressel, G.; Lorenz, K; Klemenz, Burkhard; Sailer, Anna M.; Seitz, Stephan; Wilde, F. W. De

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.021

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two authors individually collected data from included articles in forms commensurate with each other. Diagnostic accuracy, represented by DOR, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, and area under the curve (AUC), was calculated 1,5,11–102 . DOR was calculated as (true positive [TP]/false positive [FP])/(false negative [FN]/true negative [TN]) to assess diagnostic accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usefulness of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Kim

et al. 2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for detecting neck nodal metastasis in early oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) as an alternative to elective neck dissection. Study Design A systematic search for relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Methods Two reviewers individually searched the five databases up to November 2019. For studies that met inclusion criteria, data on patient diagnoses were pooled, including true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. Methodological quality was checked with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (version 2) tool. Results In total, 98 observational or retrospective studies were included. The diagnostic odds ratio of SLNB was 326.165 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 231.477–459.587; I2 = 0%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.982. Sensitivity was 0.827 (95% CI: 0.804–0.848), and specificity was 0.981 (95% CI: 0.975–0.986). The correlation between sensitivity and the false positive rate was −0.076, which indicates that heterogeneity did not exist. Subgroup analyses were performed with the subgroups reference test type, publication year, and study type. No significant difference was found within the reference test type subgroup. However, differences within the publication year and study type subgroups were significant, where the retrospective study subgroup was significantly more sensitive and specific than the prospective study subgroup. Conclusion Results of this meta‐analysis imply that the high specificity of SLNB supports its role as a diagnostic tool for patients with clinical tumor stage (CT)1‐2 clinically negative (N0) OSCC. More studies should be done to further verify the results of this study. Level of Evidence 2a Laryngoscope, 131:E459–E465, 2021

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usefulness of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Kim

et al. 2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moya-Plana et al (30) compared the reliability between SLNB and END in 229 cT1-2N0 oral SCC patients; the authors reported negative predictive value of SLNB was as high as 92.7%, and the two groups had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Riese et al (31) described in 36 patients with early oral and oropharynx SCC, all the 12 patients with pathologic metastasis were detected in SLNB, and it showed a sensitivity of 94.4% and a specificity of 100%. All these findings as well as recent research (32)(33)(34) confirmed SLNB was a precise diagnostic procedure in oral SCC and superior to PET-CT in melanoma and anal cancer for assessing nodal status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between PET-CT–Guided Neck Dissection and Elective Neck Dissection in cT1-2N0 Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Zhu

Sun

2020

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Neck management in cT1-2N0 tongue squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) remains controversial. Our goal was to compare the survival difference between PET-CT-guided neck dissection and elective neck dissection (END) for the treatment of cT1-2 tongue SCC. Methods: Patients with surgically treated cT1-2N0 tongue SCC were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups. Group A: The decision of whether to perform neck dissection was mainly based on the results of preoperative PET-CT examinations. Group B: Patients received END treatment without preoperative PET-CT examinations. The study endpoints were regional control (RC) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival rates. Results: Group A consisted of 66 patients, and 16 patients underwent neck dissection owing to positive PET-CT results. Group B consisted of 169 patients. The 5-year RC rates in group A and group B were 86 and 87%, respectively, and the difference was not significant (p = 0.731). The 5-year DSS rates in group A and group B were 93 and 90%, respectively, and the difference was not significant (p = 0.583). Conclusions: Neck dissection can be safely avoided when the PET-CT scan reveals no neck lymph node involvement.

show abstract

“…Recent studies have shown the high sensitivity and specificity of up to 94% of tilmanocept in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [45,46]. Assessment of single-photon emission computed tomography with computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in addition to planar lymph scintigraphy provides precise anatomical localization in clinically negative nodal status and early stages of the head and neck cancers [24] (Figure 7).…”

Section: Lymphoscintigraphy and Sentinel Lymph Node In Oral And Maxilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Role of Nuclear Medicine in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Nazerani¹,

Kalmár²,

Aigner³

2021

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past several years, nuclear medicine has emerged as one of the most useful imaging studies in oral and maxillofacial surgery, not only in diagnosis and staging but also in the management plan and follow-up protocols of many cancer or inflammatory diseases. Nuclear medicine has in addition a special place in treating several benign and malignant diseases. The practicing maxillofacial surgeon's knowledge of nuclear medicine capabilities and advantages and disadvantages of each modality is crucial in his or her daily work. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the important role of nuclear medicine in diagnosis and treatment of oral and maxillofacial region pathologies as well as its indications and limitations in the daily practice of the oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

show abstract

Validity of sentinel node biopsy in early oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

Usefulness of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Usefulness of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Comparison Between PET-CT–Guided Neck Dissection and Elective Neck Dissection in cT1-2N0 Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Emerging Role of Nuclear Medicine in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About