| Literature DB >> 34287476 |
Yongfeng Chen1, Qi Xiao2, Weina Zou2, Chengwan Xia2, Hongling Yin2, Yumei Pu2, Yuxin Wang2, Kai Zhang1.
Abstract
This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the value of indocyanine green (ICG) in guiding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients with oral cavity cancer. An electronic database search (PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed from their inception to June 2020 to retrieve clinical studies of ICG applied to SLNB for oral cavity cancer. Data were extracted from 14 relevant articles (226 patients), and 9 studies (134 patients) were finally included in the meta-analysis according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled sentinel lymph node (SLN) sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.0-96.0), 64.0% (95% CI, 61.0-66.0), 2.45 (95% CI, 1.31-4.60), 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17-0.90), and 7.30 (95% CI, 1.74-30.68), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8805. In conclusion, ICG applied to SLNB can effectively predict the status of regional lymph nodes in oral cavity cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34287476 PMCID: PMC8266175 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Figure 1Flowchart of study selection adapted from PRISMA.
Figure 2Methodological evaluation of the included studies according to the QUADAS-2 criteria (a) overall and (b) by study QUADAS, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
Characteristics of the studies included.
| Author | Year | Country | No. | Age (years) | Tumor | Reference test | Procedure | LNs | SLNs | SLN+ | Mean SLNs | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoon Kim et al. ( | 2020 | South Korea | 9 | 48 | OSCC | pathology | RAND | 313 | 31 | 5 | 3.4 | No recurrence or metastasis were seen |
| Ishiguro et al. ( | 2020 | Japan | 27 | 65 | tongue cancer | pathology | SND | ND | 41 | 5 | 1.5 | 76 months, 3 of 22 patients without SLN metastasis had occult cervical lymph node metastasis, and 1 SLN positive case recurred |
| Honda et al. ( | 2019 | Japan | 16 | 65.5 | tongue cancer | pathology | SND | ND | 30 | 5 | 1.9 | 38 months, neck recurrence was found in 2 of the 11 patients who initially showed metastasis-negative SLNs |
| Meershoek et al. ( | 2019 | Netherlands | 19 | 59 | tongue cancer | pathology | SND | 69 | 60 | 5 | 3.2 | - |
| KleinJan et al. ( | 2018 | Netherlands | 51 | 61 | OSCC | pathology | SND | 357 | 293 | 10 | 5.7 | 33 months, false negative findings of oral cavity patients occurred in the first 15 cases |
| Digonnet et al. ( | 2016 | Belgium | 2 | 56.5 | oral cancer | pathology | SND | 23 | 1 | 1 | - | 3-22 months (0 recurrence) |
| Christensen et al. ( | 2016 | Denmark | 30 | 64 | OSCC | pathology | SND | ND | 94 | 6 | 3.1 | - |
| Peng et al. ( | 2015 | China | 19 | 60.5 | OSCC | pathology | SND (18)RND (1) | 420 | 61 | 5 | 3.2 | - |
| Nakamura et al. ( | 2015 | Japan | 3 | - | tongue cancer | pathology | SND | ND | 8 | 1 | 2.7 | No recurrence or metastasis were seen |
| Murase et al. ( | 2015 | Japan | 16 | 65.5 | oral cancer | pathology | SND | ND | 35 | 2 | 2.2 | more than 3 years, (1 ICG imaging patient died of lung metastasis; no other signs of recurrence or metastasis were seen) |
| Borbón-Arce et al. ( | 2014 | Spain | 9 | 60 | OSCC | pathology | SND | 30 | 30 | 6 | 3.3 | - |
| Joost et al. ( | 2013 | Germany | 8 | 59.5 | oral cancer | pathology | SND | 184 | 15 | 2 | 1.9 | - |
| Frontado et al. ( | 2013 | Spain | 3 | 52 | OSCC | pathology | SND | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Nynke et al. ( | 2012 | Netherlands | 14 | 60.5 | OSCC | pathology | SND | 94 | 47 | 1 | 3.4 | - |
Abbreviations: ND, not detected; OSCC, oral squamous cell cancer; RAND, robotic retroauricular neck dissection; SND, selective neck dissection; SLN, sentinel lymph node SLN+, positive SLN.
Technical aspects of ICG near-infrared fluorescence.
| Author | Commercial name of ICG | Concentration | Dose | Detection method | Injection site | Equipment | Injection time | Fluorescent time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoon Kim et al. ( | 2.5 mg/ml | 2 ml | ICG | peritumoral | Firefly system, robotic system, | preoperative | - | |
| Ishiguro et al. ( | Daiichi Sankyo Company, Tokyo, Japan | 5 mg/ml | 2 ml | ICG | peritumoral | CTL, near-infrared camera | intraoperative | - |
| Honda et al. ( | Daiichi Pharmaceutical | 5 mg/ml | 2 ml | CT lymphography, ICG | peritumoral | FLAIR, near-infrared camera, HEMS, PDE | preoperative | 1 min/2 min |
| Meershoek et al. ( | ICG-Pulsion; Pulsion Medical Systems | 1.25 mg/ml | 80 MBq | ICG-99mTc-nanocolloid | peritumoral | PDE, near-infrared camera, | preoperative | - |
| KleinJan et al. ( | Pulsion Medical Systems, Múnich, Germany | 1.25 mg/ml | 81 MBq | ICG-99mTc-nanocolloid, blue dye | peritumoral | SPECT/CT, near-infrared camera, γ-probe | preoperative | 15 min/2 h |
| Digonnet et al. ( | Pulsion Medical System, Belgium | 0.25 mg/kg | - | ICG | intravenous | near-infrared camera | intraoperative | 2 h |
| Christensen et al. ( | ICG-Pulsion,Pulsion Medical, Germany | 0.25 mg/ml | 0.2 ml | ICG-99mTc -nanocolloid | peritumoral | SPECT/CT, near-infrared camera, γ-probe | preoperative | - |
| Peng et al. ( | Dandong, China | 5 mg/ml | 1 ml | blue dye, ICG | peritumoral | near-infrared camera | preoperative | 10 min |
| Nakamura et al. ( | Daiichi Sankyo, Tokyo, Japan | 2.5 mg/ml | 0.5 ml | 99mTc, ICG | peritumoral | HEMS monitor, | preoperative | 19.8±12.6 min |
| Murase et al. ( | Diagnogreen; Daiichi Pharmaceutical, Tokyo, Japan | 5 mg/ml | 0.4 ml | ICG | peritumoral | γ-probe | intraoperative | 2 h |
| Borbón-Arce et al. ( | ICG-Pulsion, Pulsion Medical Systems, Múnich, Germany | 2.5 mg/ml | 85 MBq | ICG-99m Tc-nanocolloid | peritumoral | SPECT/CT, near-infrared camera, γ-probe, PDE | preoperative | 15 min/2 h |
| Joost et al. ( | Pulsion Medical Systems (Múnich, Germany) | 2.5 mg/ml | 1.6 mL | blue dye, ICG-99m Tc, HSA | peritumoral | Mini-FLARE imaging system | preoperative | 5/10/15/30 min |
| Frontado et al. ( | ICG-Pulsion, Pulsion Medical Systems, Múnich, Alemania | 5 mg/ml | 86.5 MBq | ICG-99m Tc-nanocolloid | peritumoral | SPECT/CT, γ- camera | preoperative | 10 min/15 min/2 h |
| Nynke et al. ( | Pulsion Medical Systems, Múnich, Germany | 2.5 mg/ml | 0.4 ml | ICG-99m Tc -nanocolloid | peritumoral | SPECT/CT, near-infrared camera, γ-probe, | preoperative | 3-19 h |
Abbreviations: HEMS, HyperEye Medical System; CT, computed tomography; CTL, computed tomographic lymphography; FLAIR, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; ICG, indocyanine green; PDE, Photo Dynamic Eye; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography.
The TP, FP, FN, and TN results of the included articles.
| Author | TP | FP | FN | TN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoon Kim et al. ( | 5 | 26 | 0 | 282 |
| Meershoek et al. ( | 5 | 55 | 0 | 9 |
| KleinJan et al. ( | 10 | 283 | 0 | 64 |
| Digonnet et al. ( | 1 | 0 | 0 | 22 |
| Peng et al. ( | 5 | 56 | 0 | 359 |
| Borbón-Arce et al. ( | 6 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Joost et al. ( | 2 | 13 | 1 | 118 |
| Frontado et al. ( | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Nynke et al. ( | 1 | 46 | 0 | 47 |
| Total | 36 | 508 | 1 | 901 |
Abbreviations: FN, false positive, FN, false negative; TP, true positive, TN, true negative.
Figure 3Threshold effect in covariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity of ICG NIR fluorescence imaging among the studies. AUC, area under the curve; ICG, indocyanine green; NIR, near-infrared; SE, standard error; SROC, summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 5Subgroup analysis of ICG combined with other detection methods. (a) The sensitivity and specificity of only free ICG NIR fluorescence imaging; (b) the sensitivity and specificity of the ICG-99mTc- nanocolloid; (c) the sensitivity and specificity of ICG combined with blue dye and the ICG-99mTc- nanocolloid. CI, confidence interval; ICG, indocyanine green; NIR, near-infrared.
Figure 4Forest plots of ICG NIR fluorescence imaging in oral cavity cancer (a) sensitivity, (b) specificity, (c) PLR, (d) NLR, and (e) DOR. DOR, Diagnostic odds ratio; ICG, indocyanine green; NIR, near-infrared; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; PLR, Positive likelihood ratio.
Sensitivity and specificity GRADE classification results of SLNB in HNC using indocyanine green.
| Factors that may decrease certainty of evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Outcome | No. of patients | Study design | Risk of bias | Indirectness | Inconsistency | Imprecision | publication bias | Test accuracy CoE |
| Hoon Kim et al. ( | sensitivity | 9 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B | ||
| Meershoek et al. ( | sensitivity | 19 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | (-1)b | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C | ||
| KleinJan et al. ( | sensitivity | 51 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | (+1) | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕⊕/A |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B | ||
| Digonnet et al. ( | Sensitivity | 2 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | (-1)c | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | (-1)c | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C | ||
| Peng et al. ( | Sensitivity | 19 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B | ||
| Borbón-Arce et al. ( | Sensitivity | 9 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | (-1)b | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C | ||
| Joost et al. ( | Sensitivity | 8 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B | ||
| Frontado et al. ( | Sensitivity | 3 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | (-1)c | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | (-1)c | not serious | ⊕⊕○○/C | ||
| Nynke et al. ( | Sensitivity | 14 | cross-sectional | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B |
| specificity | (-1)a | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | ⊕⊕⊕○/B | ||
Abbreviations: HNC, head and neck cancer; SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy. a cross-sectional study is not a randomized controlled study, and the level of evidence needs to be downgraded; b. the sample has low homogeneity, considered to degrade; c) the size of homogeneous sample affects the reliability of the results.