F M Crocetta1, C Botti2,3, C Pernice2, D Murri2, A Castellucci2, M Menichetti2, M Costantini4, F Venturelli3,5, M C Bassi6, A Ghidini2. 1. Otorhinolaryngology Unit, Department of Surgery, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. francescomario85@gmail.com. 2. Otorhinolaryngology Unit, Department of Surgery, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 3. Clinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 4. Scientific Directorate, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 5. Epidemiology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Medical Library, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a summary of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of two surgical treatment strategies, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and elective neck dissection (END), in patients with T1-T2 oral cancer and clinically negative (cN0) neck, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and neck recurrence rates (NRRs). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by including studies published up to April 2019. Meta-analysis was performed to compare NRRs between SNB and END. A narrative summary of the results was generated for OS, DFS and morbidity outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: No randomized studies were retrieved. Five observational studies were included in the comparative effectiveness analysis and four observational studies were included in the comparative morbidity analysis. The pooled risk ratio showed no differences in NRRs between SNB and END (10.5% vs 11.6%; pooled RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.67-1.76). No differences in OS or DFS between the two treatments were found. SNB appears to be associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and lower shoulder dysfunction than END. Conversely, the results of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are not sufficient to advocate a particular strategy. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the lack of well conducted and randomized studies comparing SNB to END, leading to poor clinical evidence. Although our findings suggest no significant differences in OS, DFS and NRR between the two strategies, the certainty of our evidence is too low to make it useful for clinical decision making.
PURPOSE: To provide a summary of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of two surgical treatment strategies, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and elective neck dissection (END), in patients with T1-T2 oral cancer and clinically negative (cN0) neck, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and neck recurrence rates (NRRs). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by including studies published up to April 2019. Meta-analysis was performed to compare NRRs between SNB and END. A narrative summary of the results was generated for OS, DFS and morbidity outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: No randomized studies were retrieved. Five observational studies were included in the comparative effectiveness analysis and four observational studies were included in the comparative morbidity analysis. The pooled risk ratio showed no differences in NRRs between SNB and END (10.5% vs 11.6%; pooled RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.67-1.76). No differences in OS or DFS between the two treatments were found. SNB appears to be associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and lower shoulder dysfunction than END. Conversely, the results of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are not sufficient to advocate a particular strategy. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the lack of well conducted and randomized studies comparing SNB to END, leading to poor clinical evidence. Although our findings suggest no significant differences in OS, DFS and NRR between the two strategies, the certainty of our evidence is too low to make it useful for clinical decision making.
Authors: Remco de Bree; Robert P Takes; Jatin P Shah; Marc Hamoir; Luiz P Kowalski; K Thomas Robbins; Juan P Rodrigo; Alvaro Sanabria; Jesus E Medina; Alessandra Rinaldo; Ashok R Shaha; Carl Silver; Carlos Suárez; Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-02-10 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Francisco J Civantos; Robert P Zitsch; David E Schuller; Amit Agrawal; Russell B Smith; Richard Nason; Guy Petruzelli; Christine G Gourin; Richard J Wong; Robert L Ferris; Adel El Naggar; John A Ridge; Randal C Paniello; Kouros Owzar; Linda McCall; Douglas B Chepeha; Wendell G Yarbrough; Jeffrey N Myers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gary L Ross; David S Soutar; D Gordon MacDonald; Taimur Shoaib; Ivan Camilleri; Andrew G Roberton; Jens A Sorensen; Jorn Thomsen; Peter Grupe; Julio Alvarez; L Barbier; J Santamaria; Tito Poli; Olindo Massarelli; Enrico Sesenna; Adorján F Kovács; Frank Grünwald; Luigi Barzan; Sandro Sulfaro; Franco Alberti Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Clare Schilling; Sandro J Stoeckli; Stephan K Haerle; Martina A Broglie; Gerhard F Huber; Jens Ahm Sorensen; Vivi Bakholdt; Annelise Krogdahl; Christian von Buchwald; Anders Bilde; Lars R Sebbesen; Edward Odell; Benjamin Gurney; Michael O'Doherty; Remco de Bree; Elisabeth Bloemena; Geke B Flach; Pedro M Villarreal; Manuel Florentino Fresno Forcelledo; Luis Manuel Junquera Gutiérrez; Julio Alvarez Amézaga; Luis Barbier; Joseba Santamaría-Zuazua; Augusto Moreira; Manuel Jacome; Maurizio Giovanni Vigili; Siavash Rahimi; Girolamo Tartaglione; Georges Lawson; Marie-Cecile Nollevaux; Cesare Grandi; Davide Donner; Emma Bragantini; Didier Dequanter; Philippe Lothaire; Tito Poli; Enrico M Silini; Erinco Sesenna; Giles Dolivet; Romina Mastronicola; Agnes Leroux; Isabel Sassoon; Philip Sloan; Mark McGurk Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 9.162