scholarly journals OC-020 Sentinel lymph node biopsy for early stage oral cancer; experience of 3 Dutch Head and Neck centers

2019 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
I. Den Toom ◽  
K. Boeve ◽  
R. Van Es ◽  
B. De Keizer ◽  
S. Van Weert ◽  
...  
Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inne J. den Toom ◽  
Koos Boeve ◽  
Daphne Lobeek ◽  
Elisabeth Bloemena ◽  
Maarten L. Donswijk ◽  
...  

Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced as a diagnostic staging modality for detection of occult metastases in patients with early stage oral cancer. Comparisons regarding accuracy to the routinely used elective neck dissection (END) are lacking in literature. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study included 390 patients staged by END and 488 by SLNB. Results: The overall sensitivity (84% vs. 81%, p = 0.612) and negative predictive value (NPV) (93%, p = 1.000) were comparable between END and SLNB patients. The END cohort contained more pT2 tumours (51%) compared to the SLNB cohort (23%) (p < 0.001). No differences were found for sensitivity and NPV between SLNB and END divided by pT stage. In floor-of-mouth (FOM) tumours, SLNB had a lower sensitivity (63% vs. 92%, p = 0.006) and NPV (90% vs. 97%, p = 0.057) compared to END. Higher disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were found for pT1 SLNB patients compared to pT1 END patients (96% vs. 90%, p = 0.048). Conclusion: In the absence of randomized clinical trials, this study provides the highest available evidence that, in oral cancer, SLNB is as accurate as END in detecting occult lymph node metastases, except for floor-of-mouth tumours.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Johnston ◽  
S Taylor ◽  
F Bannon ◽  
S McAllister

Abstract Introduction and Aims The aim of this systematic review is to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the role and test performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the head and neck. Method This review follows the PRISMA guidelines. Database searches for MEDLINE and EMBASE were constructed to retrieve human studies published between 1st January 2010 and 1st July 2020 assessing the role and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous malignant melanoma of the head and neck. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers and critically appraised using the MINORS criteria. The primary outcomes consisted of the sentinel node identification rate and test-performance measures, including the false-negative rate and the posttest probability negative. Results A total of 27 studies, including 4688 patients, met the eligibility criteria. Statistical analysis produced weighted summary estimates for the sentinel node identification rate of 97.3% (95% CI, 95.9% to 98.6%), the false-negative rate of 21.3% (95% CI, 17.0% to 25.4%) and the posttest probability negative of 4.8% (95% CI, 3.9% to 5.8%). Discussion Sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate and feasible in the head and neck. Despite technical improvements in localisation techniques, the false negative rate remains disproportionately higher than for melanoma in other anatomical sites.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 48-48
Author(s):  
Christina Ahn Minami ◽  
Ava F. Bryan ◽  
Anna C. Revette ◽  
Rachel A. Freedman ◽  
Tari A. King ◽  
...  

48 Background: Trial data show that omission of surgical axillary staging does not affect overall survival in women >70 with cT1N0 hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, and the Society of Surgical Oncology’s Choosing Wisely recommendations advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with early-stage HR+ cancers. Despite this, almost 80% of women eligible for omission still undergo SLNB. We sought to explore oncologists’ perspectives of omission of SLNB in this patient population. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with surgical, medical, and radiation breast oncologists throughout North America from 3/2020 to 1/2021. Purposive snowball sampling ensured a range of practice types. Interviews were transcribed and a team trained in qualitative analysis undertook thematic analysis guided by grounded theory to identify emergent themes. Results: Participants included sixteen surgical, six medical, and seven radiation oncologists (55% female) (Table). Overall, while oncologists in all fields expressed acceptance regarding SLNB omission in certain women >70 with cT1N0 HR+ disease, many viewed it as a complex choice based on patient comorbidities, chronologic age, patient preferences, and disease factors. Although patients’ physiologic age and life expectancy were also important decisional factors, almost all participants assessed these subjectively despite knowing that validated tools existed. Most surgeons perceived the data backing the Choosing Wisely recommendation as weak, although knowledge of specific supporting studies was low. While all participants agreed that SLNB omission does not affect survival, several radiation oncologists expressed anxiety about resultant increased regional recurrence risk. In the absence of known nodal status, medical and radiation oncologists stated they were more likely to order additional imaging, rely on OncotypeDX scores to make systemic therapy decisions, add high tangents, and be reluctant to offer partial breast irradiation. Conclusions: While surgeons are aware of the Choosing Wisely recommendation, high SLNB rates in patients eligible for omission may be driven by perceptions of the quality of the supporting data and differing ideas regarding appropriate candidacy for omission. There are downstream effects of SLNB omission on medical and radiation oncology treatment decision making and surgeons should engage in multidisciplinary discussion prior to surgery.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document