OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was conducted to examine the test performance of sentinel node biopsy in head and neck melanoma, including the identification rate and false-negative rate. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, ASCO, and SSO database searches were conducted to identify studies fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: sentinel node biopsy was performed, lesions were located on the head and neck, and recurrence data for both metastatic and nonmetastatic patients were reported. REVIEW METHODS: Dual-blind data extraction was conducted. Primary outcomes included identification rate and test performance based on completion neck dissection or nodal recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 3442 patients from 32 studies published between 1990 and 2009 were reviewed. Seventy-eight percent of studies were retrospective and 22% were prospective. Trials varied from 9 to 755 patients (median 55). Mean Breslow depth was 2.53 mm. Median sentinel node biopsy identification rate was 95.2%. More than 1 basin was reported in 33.1% of patients. A median of 2.56 sentinel nodes per patient were excised. Sentinel node biopsy was positive in 15% of patients. Subsequent completion neck dissection was performed in almost all of these patients and revealed additional positive nodes in 13.67%. Median follow-up was 31 months. Across all studies, predictive value positive for nodal recurrence was 13.1% and posttest probability negative was 5%. Median false-negative rate for nodal recurrence was 20.4%. CONCLUSION: Sentinel node biopsy of head and neck melanoma is associated with an increased false-negative rate compared with studies of non-head and neck lesions. Positive sentinel node status is highly predictive of recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was conducted to examine the test performance of sentinel node biopsy in head and neck melanoma, including the identification rate and false-negative rate. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, ASCO, and SSO database searches were conducted to identify studies fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: sentinel node biopsy was performed, lesions were located on the head and neck, and recurrence data for both metastatic and nonmetastatic patients were reported. REVIEW METHODS: Dual-blind data extraction was conducted. Primary outcomes included identification rate and test performance based on completion neck dissection or nodal recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 3442 patients from 32 studies published between 1990 and 2009 were reviewed. Seventy-eight percent of studies were retrospective and 22% were prospective. Trials varied from 9 to 755 patients (median 55). Mean Breslow depth was 2.53 mm. Median sentinel node biopsy identification rate was 95.2%. More than 1 basin was reported in 33.1% of patients. A median of 2.56 sentinel nodes per patient were excised. Sentinel node biopsy was positive in 15% of patients. Subsequent completion neck dissection was performed in almost all of these patients and revealed additional positive nodes in 13.67%. Median follow-up was 31 months. Across all studies, predictive value positive for nodal recurrence was 13.1% and posttest probability negative was 5%. Median false-negative rate for nodal recurrence was 20.4%. CONCLUSION: Sentinel node biopsy of head and neck melanoma is associated with an increased false-negative rate compared with studies of non-head and neck lesions. Positive sentinel node status is highly predictive of recurrence.
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Giammarile; Omgo E Nieweg; Julien Dubreuil; Alessandro Testori; Riccardo A Audisio; Odysseas Zoras; Michael Lassmann; Annette H Chakera; Roger Uren; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D Evrard; E Routier; C Mateus; G Tomasic; J Lombroso; F Kolb; C Robert; A Moya-Plana Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kirsten M Baecher; Michael K Turgeon; Caroline R Medin; Geetha Mahendran; Terrill M Flakes; Keith A Delman; Michael C Lowe Journal: Am Surg Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: F C Wright; L H Souter; S Kellett; A Easson; C Murray; J Toye; D McCready; C Nessim; D Ghazarian; N J Look Hong; S Johnson; D P Goldstein; T Petrella Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Danique M S Berger; Nynke S van den Berg; Vincent van der Noort; Bernies van der Hiel; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Tessa A Buckle; Gijs H KleinJan; Oscar R Brouwer; Lenka Vermeeren; Baris Karakullukçu; Michiel W M van den Brekel; Bart A van de Wiel; Omgo E Nieweg; Alfons J M Balm; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; W Martin C Klop Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: John E Hanks; Kevin J Kovatch; S Ahmed Ali; Emily Roberts; Alison B Durham; Joshua D Smith; Carol R Bradford; Kelly M Malloy; Philip S Boonstra; Christopher D Lao; Scott A McLean Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Hidde J Veenstra; W Martin C Klop; Maarten J Speijers; Peter J F M Lohuis; Omgo E Nieweg; Harald J Hoekstra; Alfons J M Balm Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 5.344