BACKGROUND: Anatomical imaging tools demonstrate poor sensitivity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with clinically node-negative necks (cN0). This study evaluates nodal size as a staging criterion for detection of cervical metastases, utilizing sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and additional pathology (step-serial sectioning, SSS; and immunohistochemistry, IHC). METHODS: Sixty-five patients with clinically N0 disease underwent SNB, with a mean of 2.4 nodes excised per patient. Nodes were fixed in formalin, bisected, and measured in 3 axes before hematoxylin-eosin staining. Negative nodes were subjected to SSS and IHC. SNB-positive patients underwent modified radical neck dissection. RESULTS: Maximum diameter was larger in levels II and III (13.1 and 13.2 mm) when compared with level I (10.5 mm; p = .004, p = .018), while minimum diameter was constant. Positive nodes were larger than negative nodes (p = .007), but nodes found positive by SSS/IHC were not significantly larger than negative nodes for either measurement (p = .433). Sensitivity and specificity were poor for all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal size is an inaccurate predictor of nodal metastases and should not be regarded as an accurate means of staging the clinically N0 neck.
BACKGROUND: Anatomical imaging tools demonstrate poor sensitivity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with clinically node-negative necks (cN0). This study evaluates nodal size as a staging criterion for detection of cervical metastases, utilizing sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and additional pathology (step-serial sectioning, SSS; and immunohistochemistry, IHC). METHODS: Sixty-five patients with clinically N0 disease underwent SNB, with a mean of 2.4 nodes excised per patient. Nodes were fixed in formalin, bisected, and measured in 3 axes before hematoxylin-eosin staining. Negative nodes were subjected to SSS and IHC. SNB-positive patients underwent modified radical neck dissection. RESULTS: Maximum diameter was larger in levels II and III (13.1 and 13.2 mm) when compared with level I (10.5 mm; p = .004, p = .018), while minimum diameter was constant. Positive nodes were larger than negative nodes (p = .007), but nodes found positive by SSS/IHC were not significantly larger than negative nodes for either measurement (p = .433). Sensitivity and specificity were poor for all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal size is an inaccurate predictor of nodal metastases and should not be regarded as an accurate means of staging the clinically N0 neck.
Authors: L Calabrese; R Bruschini; M Ansarin; G Giugliano; C De Cicco; F Ionna; G Paganelli; F Maffini; J A Werner; D Soutar Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: J K Antonio; S Santini; D Politi; S Sulfaro; R Spaziante; A Alberti; M Pin; L Barzan Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: L W T Alkureishi; Z Burak; J A Alvarez; J Ballinger; A Bilde; A J Britten; L Calabrese; C Chiesa; A Chiti; R de Bree; H W Gray; K Hunter; A F Kovacs; M Lassmann; C R Leemans; G Mamelle; M McGurk; J Mortensen; T Poli; T Shoaib; P Sloan; J A Sorensen; S J Stoeckli; J B Thomsen; G Trifiro; J Werner; G L Ross Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lee W T Alkureishi; Zeynep Burak; Julio A Alvarez; James Ballinger; Anders Bilde; Alan J Britten; Luca Calabrese; Carlo Chiesa; Arturo Chiti; Remco de Bree; Harry W Gray; Keith Hunter; Adorjan F Kovacs; Michael Lassmann; C Rene Leemans; Gerard Mamelle; Mark McGurk; Jann Mortensen; Tito Poli; Taimur Shoaib; Philip Sloan; Jens A Sorensen; Sandro J Stoeckli; Jorn B Thomsen; Giusepe Trifiro; Jochen Werner; Gary L Ross Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 9.236