Moni Abraham Kuriakose1, Nirav P Trivedi. 1. Head and Neck Institute, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kerala, India. mak12@nyu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is emerging as a potential tool to evaluate neck node metastasis in head and neck cancer. The purpose of this article is to undertake a systemic review of published literature and to outline future directions for further studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Existing data suggest that the status of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) predicts the pathologic stage of the nodal basin. It has been demonstrated that radiolabeled lymphoscintigraphy is superior to blue dye to localize the SLN in head and neck cancer. SLN biopsy should be recommended only in patients with previously untreated early stage (T1/2) oral cavity and orophparynx cancer with clinical N0 stage. The procedure is technique sensitive. The isolated SLN should be subjected to serial step sectioning at 150 microm and staining by hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry. Intraoperative frozen section and imprint cytology are not sensitive to identify small foci of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells within the SLN. The clinical relevance of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells needs to be established. It is necessary to develop a better method for intraoperative pathological confirmation of SLN metastasis. There exists no randomized clinical trial with adequate power that compares SNB and elective neck dissection in head and neck cancer. SUMMARY: SNB in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma should be considered as an investigational tool pending validation by larger randomized clinical trials; therefore, it should not be recommended at present outside a clinical trial setting.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is emerging as a potential tool to evaluate neck node metastasis in head and neck cancer. The purpose of this article is to undertake a systemic review of published literature and to outline future directions for further studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Existing data suggest that the status of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) predicts the pathologic stage of the nodal basin. It has been demonstrated that radiolabeled lymphoscintigraphy is superior to blue dye to localize the SLN in head and neck cancer. SLN biopsy should be recommended only in patients with previously untreated early stage (T1/2) oral cavity and orophparynx cancer with clinical N0 stage. The procedure is technique sensitive. The isolated SLN should be subjected to serial step sectioning at 150 microm and staining by hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry. Intraoperative frozen section and imprint cytology are not sensitive to identify small foci of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells within the SLN. The clinical relevance of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells needs to be established. It is necessary to develop a better method for intraoperative pathological confirmation of SLN metastasis. There exists no randomized clinical trial with adequate power that compares SNB and elective neck dissection in head and neck cancer. SUMMARY: SNB in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma should be considered as an investigational tool pending validation by larger randomized clinical trials; therefore, it should not be recommended at present outside a clinical trial setting.
Authors: S C Loke; A Karandikar; M Ravanelli; D Farina; J P N Goh; E A Ling; R Maroldi; T Y Tan Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Floris P R Verbeek; Stijn Keereweer; Jeroen C Jansen; Lilly-Ann van der Velden; Antonius P M Langeveld; Merlijn Hutteman; Clemens W G M Löwik; Cornelis J H van de Velde; John V Frangioni; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Vyomesh Patel; Daniel Martin; Ruchika Malhotra; Christina A Marsh; Colleen L Doçi; Timothy D Veenstra; Cherie-Ann O Nathan; Uttam K Sinha; Bhuvanesh Singh; Alfredo A Molinolo; James F Rusling; J Silvio Gutkind Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2012-09-23 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Vyomesh Patel; Christina A Marsh; Robert T Dorsam; Constantinos M Mikelis; Andrius Masedunskas; Panomwat Amornphimoltham; Cherie-Ann O Nathan; Cherie Ann Nathan; Bhuvanesh Singh; Roberto Weigert; Alfredo A Molinolo; J Silvio Gutkind Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Nynke S van den Berg; Oscar R Brouwer; W Martin C Klop; Bariş Karakullukcu; Charlotte L Zuur; I Bing Tan; Alfons J M Balm; Michiel W M van den Brekel; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andreas Pabst; Daniel G E Thiem; Elisabeth Goetze; Alexander K Bartella; Michael T Neuhaus; Jürgen Hoffmann; Alexander-N Zeller Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 3.573