BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in early head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for studies published before October 31, 2012. Pooled values for the sentinel lymph node identification rate, sensitivity, false-negative rate, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (987 patients) was included. The pooled identification rate, sensitivity, false-negative rate, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 95.2%, 86.3%, 13.7%, 94.2%, and 95.0%, respectively. The subgroup with high methodological quality showed a mean identification rate of 95.4% for SLNB validation trials and 94.2% for SLNB alone trials, and mean sensitivity of 91.0% for SLNB validation trials and 84.2% for SLNB alone trials. CONCLUSION: The SLNB procedure has shown a high sensitivity rate, but the pooled sensitivity and false-negative rate were worse in SLNB alone trials than in SLNB validation trials.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in early head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for studies published before October 31, 2012. Pooled values for the sentinel lymph node identification rate, sensitivity, false-negative rate, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (987 patients) was included. The pooled identification rate, sensitivity, false-negative rate, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 95.2%, 86.3%, 13.7%, 94.2%, and 95.0%, respectively. The subgroup with high methodological quality showed a mean identification rate of 95.4% for SLNB validation trials and 94.2% for SLNB alone trials, and mean sensitivity of 91.0% for SLNB validation trials and 84.2% for SLNB alone trials. CONCLUSION: The SLNB procedure has shown a high sensitivity rate, but the pooled sensitivity and false-negative rate were worse in SLNB alone trials than in SLNB validation trials.
Authors: Shlomo A Koyfman; Nofisat Ismaila; Doug Crook; Anil D'Cruz; Cristina P Rodriguez; David J Sher; Damian Silbermins; Erich M Sturgis; Terance T Tsue; Jared Weiss; Sue S Yom; F Christopher Holsinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anders Christensen; Karina Juhl; Birgitte Charabi; Jann Mortensen; Katalin Kiss; Andreas Kjær; Christian von Buchwald Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.344