Danique M S Berger1, Nynke S van den Berg2, Vincent van der Noort3, Bernies van der Hiel4, Renato A Valdés Olmos4, Tessa A Buckle5, Gijs H KleinJan6, Oscar R Brouwer7, Lenka Vermeeren8, Baris Karakullukçu9, Michiel W M van den Brekel9, Bart A van de Wiel10, Omgo E Nieweg11, Alfons J M Balm9, Fijs W B van Leeuwen5, W Martin C Klop9. 1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; d.berger@nki.nl m.klop@nki.nl. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Urology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 11. Melanoma Institute Australia and Central Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
Sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy (SNB) has proven to be a valuable tool for staging melanoma patients. Since its introduction in the early 1990s, this procedure has undergone several technologic refinements, including the introduction of SPECT/CT, as well as radioguidance and fluorescence guidance. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of this technologic evolution on SNB in the head and neck region. The primary endpoint was the false-negative (FN) rate. Secondary endpoints were number of harvested SNs, overall operation time, operation time per harvested SN, and postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective database was queried for cutaneous head and neck melanoma patients who underwent SNB at The Netherlands Cancer Institute between 1993 and 2016. The implementation of new detection techniques was divided into 4 groups: 1993-2005, with preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative use of both a γ-ray detection probe and patent blue (n = 30); 2006-2007, with addition of preoperative road maps based on SPECT/CT (n = 15); 2008-2009, with intraoperative use of a portable γ-camera (n = 40); and 2010-2016, with addition of near-infrared fluorescence guidance (n = 192). Results: In total, 277 patients were included. At least 1 SN was identified in all patients. A tumor-positive SN was found in 59 patients (21.3%): 10 in group 1 (33.3%), 3 in group 2 (20.0%), 6 in group 3 (15.0%), and 40 in group 4 (20.8%). Regional recurrences in patients with tumor-negative SNs resulted in an overall FN rate of 11.9% (group 1, 16.7%; group 2, 0%; group 3, 14.3%; group 4, 11.1%). The number of harvested nodes increased with advancing technologies (P = 0.003), whereas Breslow thickness and operation time per harvested SN decreased (P = 0.003 and P = 0.017, respectively). There was no significant difference in percentage of tumor-positive SNs, overall operation time, and complication rate between the different groups. Conclusion: The use of advanced detection technologies led to a higher number of identified SNs without an increase in overall operation time, possibly indicating an improved surgical efficiency. Operation time per harvested SN decreased; the average FN rate remained 11.9% and was unchanged over 23 y. There was no significant change in postoperative complication rate.
Sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy (SNB) has proven to be a valuable tool for staging melanoma patients. Since its introduction in the early 1990s, this procedure has undergone several technologic refinements, including the introduction of SPECT/CT, as well as radioguidance and fluorescence guidance. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of this technologic evolution on SNB in the head and neck region. The primary endpoint was the false-negative (FN) rate. Secondary endpoints were number of harvested SNs, overall operation time, operation time per harvested SN, and postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective database was queried for cutaneous head and neck melanoma patients who underwent SNB at The Netherlands Cancer Institute between 1993 and 2016. The implementation of new detection techniques was divided into 4 groups: 1993-2005, with preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative use of both a γ-ray detection probe and patent blue (n = 30); 2006-2007, with addition of preoperative road maps based on SPECT/CT (n = 15); 2008-2009, with intraoperative use of a portable γ-camera (n = 40); and 2010-2016, with addition of near-infrared fluorescence guidance (n = 192). Results: In total, 277 patients were included. At least 1 SN was identified in all patients. A tumor-positive SN was found in 59 patients (21.3%): 10 in group 1 (33.3%), 3 in group 2 (20.0%), 6 in group 3 (15.0%), and 40 in group 4 (20.8%). Regional recurrences in patients with tumor-negative SNs resulted in an overall FN rate of 11.9% (group 1, 16.7%; group 2, 0%; group 3, 14.3%; group 4, 11.1%). The number of harvested nodes increased with advancing technologies (P = 0.003), whereas Breslow thickness and operation time per harvested SN decreased (P = 0.003 and P = 0.017, respectively). There was no significant difference in percentage of tumor-positive SNs, overall operation time, and complication rate between the different groups. Conclusion: The use of advanced detection technologies led to a higher number of identified SNs without an increase in overall operation time, possibly indicating an improved surgical efficiency. Operation time per harvested SN decreased; the average FN rate remained 11.9% and was unchanged over 23 y. There was no significant change in postoperative complication rate.
Authors: Richard A Scolyer; John F Thompson; Ling-Xi L Li; Alison Beavis; Michael Dawson; Phillip Doble; Vivian S K Ka; J Gregory McKinnon; Robyne Soper; Roger F Uren; Helen M Shaw; Jonathan R Stretch; Stanley W McCarthy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Oscar R Brouwer; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Lenka Vermeeren; Cornelis A Hoefnagel; Omgo E Nieweg; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hidde J Veenstra; Michel W J M Wouters; Michel J W M Wouters; Bin B R Kroon; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Mark B Faries; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Robert H Andtbacka; Nicola Mozzillo; Jonathan S Zager; Tiina Jahkola; Tawnya L Bowles; Alessandro Testori; Peter D Beitsch; Harald J Hoekstra; Marc Moncrieff; Christian Ingvar; Michel W J M Wouters; Michael S Sabel; Edward A Levine; Doreen Agnese; Michael Henderson; Reinhard Dummer; Carlo R Rossi; Rogerio I Neves; Steven D Trocha; Frances Wright; David R Byrd; Maurice Matter; Eddy Hsueh; Alastair MacKenzie-Ross; Douglas B Johnson; Patrick Terheyden; Adam C Berger; Tara L Huston; Jeffrey D Wayne; B Mark Smithers; Heather B Neuman; Schlomo Schneebaum; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Charlotte E Ariyan; Darius C Desai; Lisa Jacobs; Kelly M McMasters; Anja Gesierich; Peter Hersey; Steven D Bines; John M Kane; Richard J Barth; Gregory McKinnon; Jeffrey M Farma; Erwin Schultz; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Richard A Hoefer; James M Lewis; Randall Scheri; Mark C Kelley; Omgo E Nieweg; R Dirk Noyes; Dave S B Hoon; He-Jing Wang; David A Elashoff; Robert M Elashoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Grant W Carlson; Douglas R Murray; Robert H Lyles; Andrea Hestley; Cynthia Cohen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harold J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Christopher A Puleo; Brendon J Coventry; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; B Mark Smithers; Eberhard Paul; William G Kraybill; J Gregory McKinnon; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Mark B Faries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Celia Chao; Sandra L Wong; Michael J Edwards; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Reintgen; R Dirk Noyes; Wayne K Stadelmann; Eric Lentsch; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Oscar R Brouwer; W Martin C Klop; Tessa Buckle; Lenka Vermeeren; Michiel W M van den Brekel; Alfons J M Balm; Omgo E Nieweg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 5.344