The emerging role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinomas
0 
Abstract
Management of clinically negative necks (cN0) in oral cavity (OCSCC) and oropharyngeal (OPSCC) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has evolved over time. Historically, the clinically negative neck has been managed with elective neck dissection (END) or observation, but more recently sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has emerged as a technique to detect occult metastases. In this review, we will discuss the role of SLNB in early-stage OCSCC and in the management of OPSCC.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinomas account for about 3% of cancers in the United States and slightly less than half of head and neck cancers[1,2]. These tumors often spread to regional lymph nodes in the neck and are the most important prognosticator for survival, decreasing survival by 50%[3]. As such, management of regional metastasis is crucial and often involves multimodality treatment[3-5]. When there is clinically evident nodal disease in the neck, guidelines for management are well-defined with treatment options including surgery (if deemed resectable) followed by adjuvant treatment, or definitive nonsurgical management[6]. However, there is some debate surrounding the optimal management of the clinically negative neck (cN0), i.e., when there is no evidence of nodal metastases on physical exam or radiographic imaging. This is an important consideration, as the rate of occult metastasis in oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 20%-30% in the ipsilateral neck[3,6-9]. In the contralateral neck, the rate of occult metastases ranges from 0.9%-36% for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) and 16%-21% for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC)[7-11]. In the last several decades, the implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a technique to evaluate the cN0 neck in oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinoma has been studied. This chapter will review the history and technique of SLNB in oral cavity and oropharyngeal SCC.
Oral cavity SCC and management of the cN0 neck: history
Historically, the cN0 neck in early-stage OCSCC (cT1-T2) was managed with watchful waiting, and therapeutic neck dissection was reserved for nodal relapse[6,12]. Proponents of this approach argued that an elective neck dissection (END) led to high rates of overtreatment and conferred additional morbidity to patients, especially if a radical or modified radical neck dissection was performed[6,12]. However, numerous studies have shown a survival benefit and improved disease control in patients who undergo END as opposed to watchful waiting for early-stage OCSCC [Table 1][6,12,13].
Survival outcomes in patients with T1-T2 OCSCC who underwent END compared to patients in the control group of each study
A randomized, prospective study by D’Cruz et al. was the first to show the prognostic benefit of END for early-stage OCSCC[6]. Patients with cT1-2, N0 OCSCC were randomized to undergo END or watchful waiting with a therapeutic neck dissection if nodal recurrence occurred[6]. At 3-year follow-up, there was improved DFS and overall survival (OS) in the END cohort [Table 1][6]. Thus, the management of cN0 disease in early-stage OCSCC shifted towards END for tumors with a depth of invasion (DOI) ≥ 4 mm instead of watchful waiting[6,13,14]. However, it is important to note that several studies suggested that thinner tumors (2 to 4 mm) in oral tongue and floor of mouth (FOM) subsites showed high rates of nodal metastases (41.7% and 42.1%, respectively) and may also warrant elective neck management[15,16].
Nonetheless, it is well-established that rates of occult nodal disease for early-stage oral cancer range between 20%-30%, meaning 70%-80% of patients may be overtreated by an END[3,4]. Studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo SLNB report better neck function compared to patients who undergo END[3,17-21]. This has led to efforts to develop a better way to evaluate and identify patients who are at higher risk of occult disease without subjecting them to more morbidity than needed. As a result, SLNB has been of immense interest in this patient cohort.
SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY
Background, terminology & important concepts
SLNB relies on the natural, predictable step-wise progression of cancer from a primary site to nearby lymph nodes[22]. A sentinel node (SN) is the first echelon lymph node that drains from the site of the primary tumor and is most likely to harbor metastasis; this may or may not be the closest node to the tumor, and there may be multiple SNs[22]. Thus, excising and evaluating these SN(s) can provide important diagnostic information[22]. Unlike END, SLNB is used for diagnostic purposes to evaluate the nodal status and is not considered a therapeutic intervention.
Brief history
The concept of SLNB was described as early as the 1970s in penile cancer to guide whether inguinal-femoral lymph node dissection was indicated[23,24]. SLNB gained further popularity after Morton et al. described SLNB techniques for evaluating early-stage cutaneous melanomas[25]. In 1996, Alex and Krag established SLNB as a safe, accurate, minimally invasive, and feasible procedure[26]. Today, SLNB is part of the standard of care for breast cancer and cutaneous malignant melanoma, and its use continues to expand[23,25].
The Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial 1 (MSLT-1) was a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial that showed the survival benefit of SLNB in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma[27]. They reported a significantly higher 5-year DFS among patients who underwent wide excision followed by SLNB compared to patients who underwent wide excision followed by observation[27]. Patients with negative SNs had significantly higher 5-year DFS and melanoma-specific survival compared to patients with positive SNs[27]. In their subsequent phase III randomized control trial, Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-II), patients with positive SNs who had an immediate completion lymphadenectomy had improved regional disease control but not melanoma-specific OS[28]. Therefore, the treatment of cutaneous malignant melanoma shifted away from proceeding with a completion lymphadenectomy. Much of the treatment paradigm implemented for SLNB in OCSCC is adopted from our experience with cutaneous malignant melanoma.
Feasibility & reliability of SLNB in early-stage OCSCC
Over the last several decades, SLNB has emerged as a technique to help evaluate the neck for occult disease in oral SCC. Early studies established the feasibility, reliability, and reproducibility of SLNB in oral SCC. Paleri et al. published a meta-analysis in 2005 on SLNB for OCSCC and OPSCC and calculated a pooled sensitivity of 92.6% for detecting occult neck disease[29]. A similar study by Thompson et al. in 2012 found a pooled negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%, with an even more favorable NPV of 98% among a subset of patients with early-stage OCSCC[30]. These studies paved the way for further investigations evaluating the use of SLNB in OCSCC.
Subsequently, several trials have investigated the sensitivity, NPV, and false negative rate (FNR) of SLNB in early-stage oral cancers. Ross et al. were the first to conduct a multicenter trial in the United Kingdom evaluating SLNB for T1-T2 OCSCC and OPSCC, comparing patients who had SLNB alone to patients who had SLNB followed by an immediate END[31]. They reported a sentinel node identification rate of 93%
Feasibility and reliability of SLNB in early oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma
| Study | Year | OC or OP | N | % OP Cases | (+) SN (%) | Sensitivity (%) | NPV (%) | FNR (%) |
| Ross et al.[31] | 2004 | OC & OP | 134 | 16.4 | 34 | 93 | - | 7.1 |
| Civantos et al.[32] | 2010 | OC | 140 | - | 29 | - | 96 | 9.8 |
| Schilling et al.[33] | 2015 | OC & OP | 415 | 14.5 | 23 | 86 | 95 | 14 |
| Sundaram et al.[17] | 2019 | OC | 58 | - | 29.3 | 88.2 | 81.2 | 0 |
| Garrel et al.[18] | 2020 | OC & OP | 307 | 12.5 | 15.9 | 63.6 | 89.2 | 9.1 |
| Hasegawa et al.[21] | 2021 | OC | 275 | - | 34.3 | 68.5 | - | 15.1 |
| *Pedersen et al.[37] | 2016 | OC | 253 | - | 27 | 88 | 95 | 5 |
| *Den Toom et al.[38] | 2020 | OC | 878 | - | 22 | 81 | 93 | 5 |
Survival outcomes in SLNB in early-stage OCSCC
Up to this point, many studies established the feasibility, reliability, and reproducibility of SLNB in OCSCC. However, much of the published data evaluating outcomes were from small single-institution retrospective studies, all of which did not find a significant difference in survival outcomes between SLNB and END
Survival Outcomes in SLNB in early-stage (T1-T2) oral cavity (OCSCC) and oropharyngeal (OPSCC) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)
| Study | Year | N | T1-T2 Cancer | Survival Outcome | |||
| Type | SLNB (%) | END (%) | P-value | ||||
| Fan et al.[39] | 2014 | 82 | Tongue SCC | 10-year Regional RFS | 86.4 | 88.2 | 0.557 |
| 10-year Overall RFS | 72.3 | 73.3 | 0.806 | ||||
| Alvarez et al.[40] | 2014 | 63 | FOM SCC | 5-year DSS | 85 | 65.6 | 0.17 |
| 5-year DFS | 62.5 | 39.4 | 0.17 | ||||
| Cramer et al.[41] | 2018 | 240 | OCSCC | 3-year OS | 82 | 77.5 | 0.40 |
| Moya-Plana et al.[42] | 2018 | 229 | OCSCC | 5-year OS | 76.4 | 78.7 | 0.73 |
| Garrel et al.[18] | 2020 | 307 | OCSCC, OPSCC | 2-year RFS | 89.6 | 90.7 | < 0.01† |
| Hasegawa et al.[21] | 2021 | 275 | OCSCC | 3-year DFS | 78.7 | 81.3 | < 0.001‡ |
| 3-year OS | 87.9 | 86.6 | < 0.001‡ | ||||
More recently, several multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled trials have directly evaluated and compared outcomes of SLNB to END [Garrel et al., Hasegawa et al., Table 3][18,21]. A multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial by Garrel et al. randomized early-stage OC/OPSCC patients to undergo END or SLNB followed by an END based on SN positivity[18]. The study utilized a non-inferiority margin of 10% with a primary endpoint of 2-year neck node recurrence-free survival (RFS)[18]. The authors concluded that SLNB was oncologically equivalent to END and suggested that SLNB should be established as the standard of care approach for cN0 early oral cancers [Table 3][18]. One note of important significance is that 12.5% of patients had oropharyngeal disease [Table 2]. Understanding the significant difference in prognosis between HPV-associated OPSCC and OCSCC, the inclusion of this mixed cohort in the analysis makes it more challenging to discern definitive conclusions.
Another multi-institutional prospective randomized trial by Hasegawa et al. compared the equivalence of SLNB to END in patients with early-stage OCSCC. Patients were randomized to undergo END or SLNB followed by supraomohyoid neck dissection if SNs were positive[21]. The study used a non-inferiority margin of 12% with a primary endpoint of 3-year OS. In addition to no difference in 3-year DFS or OS [Table 3], they demonstrated better neck functionality scores in the SLNB group relative to the END group[21].
Although these prospective randomized trials provided significant results in an area with a paucity of high-level clinical data, there are notable questions to the study design and statistical analyses that prompt additional investigation to evaluate the true oncologic equivalence or non-inferiority of SLNB compared to END[39,43]. This led to the design of an international cooperative group multi-institutional phase II/III prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing SLNB versus END in early-stage oral cavity cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04333537). The phase II objective is to determine whether patient-reported neck and shoulder function is superior with SLNB compared to END at 6 months after surgery. The phase III primary objective is to determine whether DFS is non-inferior with SLNB compared to END using a non-inferiority margin of 5%. All patients in this study will undergo initial staging with a positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan and will be excluded if this test is positive. However, these excluded patients will remain in a registry in order to compare the images with final neck pathology findings. This will provide valuable information on the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT as a staging imaging modality for early-stage OCSCC.
Sentinel lymph node biopsy: technique
SLNB begins either the day before surgery or the day of surgery with injection of a radiotracer peritumorally at 2-4 quadrants [Figure 1]. The tracer contains technetium-99 (99mTc) and comes in different formulations, such as sulfur colloid (99mTc-sulfur colloid), albumin colloid (99mTc-albumin), tilmanocept (99mTc-tilmanocept), and nanocolloid (99mTc-nanocolloid). The use of the different tracers can depend on the availability of the formulation in different parts of the world. Each formulation travels via passive diffusion and has different transit properties[44,45]. Compared to 99mTc-tilmanocept, 99mTc-sulfur colloid and 99mTc-albumin travel slower due to their larger particle size, which can affect the visualization of SNs near the injection site[45]. 99mTc-tilmanocept is emerging as a promising radiotracer due to its high sensitivity and specificity[46]. 99mTc-tilmanocept clears from the injection site more quickly and has more effective uptake since it binds to CD206 receptors on antigen-presenting cells within the lymph nodes[45,47,48]. 99mTc-tilmanocept has shown lower FNR (2.56%) compared to 99mTc-sulfur colloid (9.8%) when utilized in oral cavity cancer and has similar accuracy in detecting SNs compared to 99mTc-nanocolloid[32,49,50]. However, one limitation of 99mTc-tilmanocept is its low radioactive uptake compared to 99mTc-nanocolloid may require injection of a higher dose to accurately identify SNs[51].
Figure 1. Flow diagram of standard SLNB technique. If a hybrid tracer is used, the ICG is injected together with the radiotracer. SN: sentinel node; SPECT/CT: single photon electron computed tomography with computed tomography scan; NIR: near-infrared; ICG: indocyanine green.
It can take at least 10 to 30 min for the SN to adequately uptake the tracer. Due to the half-life of 99mTc (~6 h)[22,52-54], timing of the tracer injection is important to allow sufficient time for uptake in SNs and for the tracer to remain radioactive for detection during surgery. Some studies suggest performing surgery within 10 to 16 hours of the injection[22,54]. Other studies have shown no difference in FNR or ability to detect SNs when the tracer was injected more than 12 to 30 h before surgery[32,49].
SNs are mapped with planar lymphoscintigraphy with or without single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT)[4,55,56]. Planar lymphoscintigraphy provides two-dimensional images of the quantity, laterality, and location of the nodes. SPECT involves a three-dimensional image that can be fused with a CT scan (SPECT-CT) to provide more detailed visualization of lymph nodes in relation to anatomical structures that can aid in improved identification intraoperatively[52]. In addition, SPECT-CT has been shown to identify more SNs compared to planar lymphoscintigraphy and can better guide the location and extent of the incision for the SLNB[52,57,58].
Blue dye (e.g., methylene blue, isosulfan blue) can be injected at the primary tumor site to aid in gross intraoperative visualization of lymphatic drainage to SNs, although it has not been shown to significantly increase the sensitivity of SLNB[59]. However, the complex drainage patterns in the head and neck make staining of blue dye more difficult[60]. While the rate of adverse reactions with blue dye is relatively low at 1%-3%, there remains a risk of anaphylactic reactions[61]. Once a SN is identified with a handheld gamma probe and is excised, the gamma probe is used to check the count rate, measured as an instantaneous count and ex vivo 10 second target count. SLNB is considered complete when all nodes with > 10% radioactivity of the highest ex vivo count are removed[62-64].
A more recent development for SLNB is the utilization of indocyanine green (ICG), a near-infrared fluorophore that is injected peritumorally. The fluorescent ICG can be visualized up to 1cm transdermally with portable near-infrared imaging systems and can guide the site of incision and dissection for the biopsy[65,66]. ICG reportedly has lower rates of severe allergic reactions compared to blue dye[65,67]. Additionally, ICG can help detect SNs that may have been masked by radioactive shine-through due to their close proximity to the radiotracer injection site[68].
Indications for SLNB in early-stage OCSCC
In 2019, the NCCN guidelines included SLNB in the treatment algorithm for OCSCC[5]. Table 4 is a summary of indications and contraindications of SLNB in OCSCC[5].
Indications and contraindications for SLNB in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma
| Indications[22,52,69-72] | Contraindications[73] |
| Clinical and radiographical N0 neck* | Clinical or radiographical evidence of nodal metastasis |
| Assessing the potential for bilateral cervical nodal drainage for primary tumors close to or crossing the midline | Patients who are pregnant or lactating |
| Assessing the potential for contralateral cervical nodal drainage for primary tumors close to or crossing the midline in patients presenting with ipsilateral cN+ neck | Large primary tumors directly compressing lymphatic drainage pathways |
| Identifying aberrant lymphatic patterns in patients with previously treated neck (with prior surgery or radiation) | Adverse reactions to dyes or agents used for imaging and visualization of SNs |
| Guiding treatment fields for elective nodal irradiation |
Utilization and indications of SLNB in OPSCC
Similar to OCSCC, OPSCC has a rate of occult nodal metastasis between 20%-30% for the ipsilateral neck and 16%-21% for the contralateral neck[7-9].
Over the last several decades, rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) associated with OPSCC have increased significantly. Numerous studies have demonstrated improved survival in patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer compared to those with HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers[74-79]. Ang et al. evaluated a cohort of 206 HPV-positive and 117 HPV-negative stage III/IV OPSCC patients and demonstrated that patients with HPV-positive OPSCC had higher 3-year OS (82.4% vs. 57.1%; P < 0.001)[74]. HPV-positive patients also had a 58% reduction in risk of death after accounting for age, race, tumor and nodal stage, tobacco exposure, and treatment assignment (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95%CI: 0.27 to 0.66)[74]. Depending on the stage at presentation and HPV status, the treatment for OPSCC can involve upfront surgical resection alone, upfront surgery followed by radiation ± chemotherapy, or definitive radiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy[5].
While some data exist regarding the utilization of SLNB for OPSCC, its use in this disease is still in its nascent stages. Several studies discussed earlier evaluating the role of SLNB in OCSCC also included patients with OPSCC, which has led to some early data on the feasibility and reproducibility of SLNB in OPSCC [Table 2][18,20,31,33]. In a meta-analysis, Govers et al. reported a FNR (5%-30%) and NPV (88%-100%) for SLNB in all oral SCC (OCSCC and OPSCC)[20]. However, none of these studies individually analyzed OPSCC patients when performing statistical analysis, thus limiting overall conclusions in the use of SLNB in this cohort. As such, while initial results are promising, this remains an area of active investigation.
Current radiotherapy management of OPSCC entails radiation of the primary tumor site and the bilateral necks, although unilateral radiation may be offered in well-lateralized tonsil cancers[80]. One indication for SLNB currently under study involves evaluating the potential for contralateral neck drainage in well-lateralized cN0 disease. One potential difference in utilizing SLNB in oropharyngeal versus oral cavity disease is patient tolerance of radiotracer injection. Thomas et al. performed awake injections of 99mTc-sulfur colloid followed by SPECT-CT and reported successful radiotracer migration to the neck in 9 of 10 patients, one of which had bilateral drainage[81]. Results from this study suggested that awake injection of radiotracer is feasible for oropharyngeal cancers; however, generalized conclusions cannot be made given the small sample size[81]. The application of SLNB to guide elective radiotherapy management of OPSCC is the focus of a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial, SPECT-CT Guided ELEctive Contralateral Neck Treatment for Patients with Lateralized Oropharyngeal Cancer (SELECT) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05451004). This trial includes patients with cT1-3 lateralized OPSCC. Patients are randomized to undergo standard-of-care bilateral neck radiotherapy versus radiotherapy to the contralateral neck guided by lymphatic mapping. Patients with lymphatic drainage only to the ipsilateral neck would be spared radiation to the contralateral neck. The primary outcome of this study is 8-year DFS with secondary outcomes including 8-year OS, quality of life measures, and isolated contralateral neck failure.
More recently, another trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05333523) has been designed to evaluate SLNB followed by neck irradiation for positive SNs versus bilateral elective neck irradiation in cN0 SCC of the oropharynx, larynx, and hypopharynx[82]. The primary endpoints seek to determine 2-year regional lymph node recurrence and 6-month xerostomia-related quality of life[82]. If the results show that the SLNB group is non-inferior to the elective neck irradiation group, then SLNB will become the standard of care[82].
Limitations of SLNB
While SLNB is feasible and has been adopted into NCCN guidelines for OCSCC, its utilization is still evolving and has several important limitations to consider, especially for use in OPSCC. For one, the reported FNR of 7%-14% has been a source of concern when considering SLNB over END, but this rate is similar to that reported for OCSCC after END (9%-20%)[35,36]. Furthermore, studies have shown that there is a “learning curve” associated with SLNB, with NPV of 100% among experienced surgeons and 95% among less experienced surgeons[32]. This factor may confound the reported FNR. Despite the reported FNR, studies have established SLNB to be a reliable method of evaluating the cN0 neck, with potential survival benefits[83].
Secondly, the complex lymphatic drainage system in the head and neck can present challenges in accurately identifying and detecting SNs for biopsy[23,30]. This is especially true in the previously treated neck (prior surgery or radiation), as it can alter the lymphatic drainage and make it difficult to identify SNs. However, several studies have demonstrated the feasibility and reliability of identifying SNs in previously treated necks, reporting identification rates of SNs as high as 83%-100% with a NPV of 91%-100%[32,49,71,84-86]. Additionally, Den Toom et al. observed unexpected lymphatic drainage patterns in 30% of patients with previously treated necks, highlighting the potential benefit of SLNB in identifying unexpected locations that can harbor metastases[84].
Another limitation is that SLNB requires more multi-disciplinary coordination than END. Coordination between the patient, nuclear medicine team, and the surgeon can be challenging to ensure proper timing of the lymphatic mapping with surgery. However, since the radiotracer can be injected the night before surgery with reliable results, there is more flexibility in the coordination[32,49]. Additionally, SLNB has been part of the management algorithm for breast cancer and melanoma for many years, showing that providers can establish a workflow and coordinate the logistics needed to successfully incorporate SLNB into their practice.
Finally, a major limitation of SLNB in oral and oropharyngeal SCC is that long-term outcomes compared to standard-of-care treatment remain unknown, and this is an area of active investigation.
Future directions
Numerous novel applications/techniques to improve the utilization of SLNB are being developed. The use of a hybrid radiotracer, ICG-99mTc-nanocolloid, has been explored. With only one injection, the hybrid tracer can allow transdermal visualization using fluorescent light and radioactivity detection using a gamma probe[36,87].
The ability to perform frozen sections on SLNB specimens is appealing as a method to obtain immediate pathologic data to facilitate an immediate completion neck dissection in patients with positive SNs. This can avoid the challenges of coordinating a second surgery or subjecting patients to a second anesthetic. The way that SNs are reviewed by pathologists is also advantageous and can be an avenue for future research. Histologic evaluation of SNs typically utilizes thinner slices via serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry stains to identify micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells. This process is not routinely utilized, nor feasible, in the pathologic evaluation of complete lymph node packets from an END due to time and cost constraints[88,89]. Vorburger et al. established that frozen sections using the monoslice technique detect positive SNs in about half of the patients and the sensitivity of this method depends on the size of metastasis[88]. While the multislice technique for frozen sections is more accurate, the monoslice technique is a single stage procedure that requires less time and is able to identify macrometastases with high accuracy[88]. These detailed pathologic evaluations are important since studies have demonstrated a difference in OS between patients with isolated tumor cells, micrometastases, and macrometastases[33,37,90].
Real-time quantitative PCR on SNs is an area of exploration and shows potential for more accurate intraoperative identification of occult metastases[91,92]. The application of machine learning is also being explored to help identify pathological features that predict the risk of metastasis prior to surgical treatment[93,94]. The hope is to identify patients who are at higher risk and may benefit from SLNB or END versus observation.
CONCLUSION
SLNB has emerged as a promising technique to identify occult nodal metastasis in patients with oral cancer and can accurately map lymphatic drainage in OPSCC. Compared to END, SLNB portends reduced morbidity, potentially avoids overtreatment, and offers important staging and prognostic information. In addition to evaluating ipsilateral disease, SLNB has the ability to detect contralateral occult nodal disease even in well-lateralized tumors, which is useful in guiding radiotherapy of the contralateral neck in OPSCC. Ongoing clinical trials continue to investigate the outcomes of implementing SLNB in the management of oral and oropharyngeal SCC.
DECLARATIONS
Author Contributions
Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study: Chan K, Saltagi1 M, Choi KY
Availability of Data and Materials
Not applicable.
Financial Support and Sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Karen Y. Choi is a consultant with Cardinal Health. Otherwise, all authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2024.
REFERENCES
1. Calabrese L, Bruschini R, Ansarin M, et al. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in oral cancer. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2006;26:345-9.
2. SEER Incidence Data, 1975 - 2020. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/data/ [Last accessed on 4 Feb 2024].
3. Kim DH, Kim Y, Kim SW, Hwang SH. Usefulness of sentinel lymph node biopsy for oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2021;131:E459-65.
4. de Bree R, de Keizer B, Civantos FJ, et al. What is the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of oral cancer in 2020? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:3181-91.
5. Forastiere AA, Ang KK, Brizel D, et al. Head and neck cancers. J Natl Compr Canc Ne 2008;6:646-95.
6. D'Cruz AK, Vaish R, Kapre N, et al. Head and Neck Disease Management Group. Elective versus therapeutic neck dissection in node-negative oral cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;373:521-9.
7. Lim YC, Koo BS, Lee JS, Lim JY, Choi EC. Distributions of cervical lymph node metastases in oropharyngeal carcinoma: therapeutic implications for the N0 neck. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1148-52.
8. Candela FC, Kothari K, Shah JP. Patterns of cervical node metastases from squamous carcinoma of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. Head Neck 1990;12:197-203.
9. Lim YC, Lee SY, Lim JY, et al. Management of contralateral N0 neck in tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1672-5.
10. Fan S, Tang QL, Lin YJ, et al. A review of clinical and histological parameters associated with contralateral neck metastases in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oral Sci 2011;3:180-91.
11. Koo BS, Lim YC, Lee JS, Choi EC. Management of contralateral N0 neck in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2006;28:896-901.
12. Yuen APW, Wei WI, Wong YM, Tang KC. Elective neck dissection versus observation in the treatment of early oral tongue carcinoma. Head Neck 1997;19:583-8.
13. Kligerman J, Lima RA, Soares JR, et al. Supraomohyoid neck dissection in the treatment of T1/T2 squamous cell carcinoma of oral cavity. Am J Surg 1994;168:391-4.
14. Huang SH, Hwang D, Lockwood G, Goldstein DP, O'Sullivan B. Predictive value of tumor thickness for cervical lymph-node involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a meta-analysis of reported studies. Cancer 2009;115:1489-97.
15. Balasubramanian D, Ebrahimi A, Gupta R, et al. Tumour thickness as a predictor of nodal metastases in oral cancer: comparison between tongue and floor of mouth subsites. Oral Oncol 2014;50:1165-8.
16. Wang K, Veivers D. Tumour thickness as a determinant of nodal metastasis in oral tongue carcinoma. ANZ J Surg 2017;87:720-4.
17. Sundaram PS, Subramanyam P. Effectiveness of sentinel lymph node scintigraphy and intraoperative gamma probing with gold standard elective neck dissection in patients with N0 oral squamous cell cancers. Nucl Med Commun 2019;40:1138-47.
18. Garrel R, Poissonnet G, Moyà Plana A, et al. Equivalence randomized trial to compare treatment on the basis of sentinel node biopsy versus neck node dissection in operable T1-T2N0 oral and oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:4010-8.
19. Gupta T, Maheshwari G, Kannan S, Nair S, Chaturvedi P, Agarwal JP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing elective neck dissection versus sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage clinically node-negative oral and/or oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: evidence-base for practice and implications for research. Oral Oncol 2022;124:105642.
20. Govers TM, Hannink G, Merkx MA, Takes RP, Rovers MM. Sentinel node biopsy for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Oral Oncol 2013;49:726-32.
21. Hasegawa Y, Tsukahara K, Yoshimoto S, et al. HNCMM Research Group. Neck dissections based on sentinel lymph node navigation versus elective neck dissections in early oral cancers: a randomized, multicenter, and noninferiority trial. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:2025-36.
22. Alkureishi LW, Burak Z, Alvarez JA, et al. European Association of Nuclear Medicine Oncology Committee; European Sentinel Node Biopsy Trial Committee. Joint practice guidelines for radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node localization in oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3190-210.
23. Nieweg OE, Uren RF, Thompson JF. The history of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Cancer J 2015;21:3-6.
25. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992;127:392-9.
26. Alex JC, Krag DN. The gamma-probe-guided resection of radiolabeled primary lymph nodes. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1996;5:33-41.
27. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. MSLT Group. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;370:599-609.
28. Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2211-22.
29. Paleri V, Rees G, Arullendran P, Shoaib T, Krishman S. Sentinel node biopsy in squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and oral pharynx: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Head Neck 2005;27:739-47.
30. Thompson CF, St John MA, Lawson G, Grogan T, Elashoff D, Mendelsohn AH. Diagnostic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2115-22.
31. Ross GL, Soutar DS, Gordon MacDonald D, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in head and neck cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:690-6.
32. Civantos FJ, Zitsch RP, Schuller DE, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy accurately stages the regional lymph nodes for T1-T2 oral squamous cell carcinomas: results of a prospective multi-institutional trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1395-400.
33. Schilling C, Stoeckli SJ, Haerle SK, et al. Sentinel European Node Trial (SENT): 3-year results of sentinel node biopsy in oral cancer. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:2777-84.
34. Valsecchi ME, Silbermins D, de Rosa N, Wong SL, Lyman GH. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1479-87.
35. Chegini S, Schilling C, Walgama ES, et al. Neck failure following pathologically node-negative neck dissection (pN0) in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;59:1157-65.
36. Schilling C, Stoeckli SJ, Vigili MG, et al. Surgical consensus guidelines on sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with oral cancer. Head Neck 2019;41:2655-64.
37. Pedersen NJ, Jensen DH, Hedbäck N, et al. Staging of early lymph node metastases with the sentinel lymph node technique and predictive factors in T1/T2 oral cavity cancer: A retrospective single-center study. Head Neck 2016;38 Suppl 1:E1033-40.
38. Den Toom IJ, Boeve K, Lobeek D, et al. Elective neck dissection or sentinel lymph node biopsy in early stage oral cavity cancer patients: the dutch experience. Cancers 2020;12:1783.
39. Fan SF, Zeng ZY, Peng HW, Guo ZM, Wang SL, Zhang Q. Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus elective neck dissection in patients with cT1-2N0 oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014;117:186-90.
40. Alvarez J, Bidaguren A, McGurk M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in relation to survival in floor of the mouth carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:269-73.
41. Cramer JD, Sridharan S, Ferris RL, Duvvuri U, Samant S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus elective neck dissection for stage I to II oral cavity cancer. Laryngoscope 2019;129:162-9.
42. Moya-Plana A, Aupérin A, Guerlain J, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in early oral squamous cell carcinomas: Long-term follow-up and nodal failure analysis. Oral Oncol 2018;82:187-94.
43. Lai SY, Ferris RL. Evolving evidence in support of sentinel lymph node biopsy for early-stage oral cavity cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:3983-6.
44. Brouwer OR, Buckle T, Vermeeren L, et al. Comparing the hybrid fluorescent-radioactive tracer indocyanine green-99mTc-nanocolloid with 99mTc-nanocolloid for sentinel node identification: a validation study using lymphoscintigraphy and SPECT/CT. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1034-40.
45. Ooms M, von Mallek D, Kaiser HJ, Hölzle F, Mottaghy FM, Modabber A. Comparison of [(99m)Tc]Tc-tilmanocept with [(99m)Tc]Tc-sulphur colloids and [(99m)Tc]Tc-albumin colloids for sentinel lymph node detection in patients with cutaneous malignancies of the head. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023;50:870-80.
46. Rovera G, de Koster EJ, Rufini V, et al. 99mTc-Tilmanocept performance for sentinel node mapping in breast cancer, melanoma, and head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from a European expert panel. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023;50:3375-89.
47. Vera DR, Wallace AM, Hoh CK, Mattrey RF. A synthetic macromolecule for sentinel node detection: (99m)Tc-DTPA-mannosyl-dextran. J Nucl Med 2001;42:951-9.
48. Wallace AM, Hoh CK, Vera DR, Darrah DD, Schulteis G. Lymphoseek: a molecular radiopharmaceutical for sentinel node detection. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:531-8.
49. Agrawal A, Civantos FJ, Brumund KT, et al. [(99m)Tc]Tilmanocept accurately detects sentinel lymph nodes and predicts node pathology status in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results of a phase III multi-institutional trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:3708-15.
50. Mahieu R, den Toom IJ, van Rooij R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of [(99m) Tc]Tc-tilmanocept compared to [(99m) Tc]Tc-nanocolloid for sentinel lymph node identification in early-stage oral cancer. Clin Otolaryngol 2021;46:1383-8.
51. den Toom IJ, Mahieu R, van Rooij R, et al. Sentinel lymph node detection in oral cancer: a within-patient comparison between [(99m)Tc]Tc-tilmanocept and [(99m)Tc]Tc-nanocolloid. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:851-8.
52. Skanjeti A, Dhomps A, Paschetta C, Tordo J, Delgado Bolton RC, Giammarile F. Lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node mapping in head and neck cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2021;51:39-49.
53. Whitman GJ, AlHalawani RH, Karbasian N, Krishnamurthy R. Sentinel lymph node evaluation: what the radiologist needs to know. Diagnostics 2019;9:12.
54. Lamichhane N, Shen KW, Li CL, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients after overnight migration of radiolabelled sulphur colloid. Postgrad Med J 2004;80:546-50.
55. Wu JX, Hanson M, Shaha AR. Sentinel node biopsy for cancer of the oral cavity. J Surg Oncol 2019;120:99-100.
56. de Bree R, Nieweg OE. The history of sentinel node biopsy in head and neck cancer: From visualization of lymphatic vessels to sentinel nodes. Oral Oncol 2015;51:819-23.
57. Meerwein CM, Sekine T, Veit-Haibach P, Bredell MG, Huber GF, Huellner MW. Multi-slice SPECT/CT vs. lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative gamma ray probe for sentinel node mapping in HNSCC. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:1633-42.
58. Haerle SK, Hany TF, Strobel K, Sidler D, Stoeckli SJ. Is there an additional value of SPECT/CT over planar lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node mapping in oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3118-24.
59. Suárez Ajuria M, Gallas Torreira M, García García A, et al. Efficacy of different sentinel lymph node biopsy protocols in oral squamous cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 2022;44:1702-14.
60. Vermeeren L, Valdés Olmos RA, Klop WM, et al. SPECT/CT for sentinel lymph node mapping in head and neck melanoma. Head Neck 2011;33:1-6.
61. Liu Y, Truini C, Ariyan S. A randomized study comparing the effectiveness of methylene blue dye with lymphazurin blue dye in sentinel lymph node biopsy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2412-7.
62. Bagaria SP, Faries MB, Morton DL. Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma: technical considerations of the procedure as performed at the John Wayne Cancer Institute. J Surg Oncol 2010;101:669-76.
64. McMasters KM, Reintgen DS, Ross MI, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: how many radioactive nodes should be removed? Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:192-7.
65. Knackstedt RW, Couto RA, Gastman B. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging with lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node biopsy in head and neck melanoma. J Surg Res 2018;228:77-83.
66. Kim JH, Ku M, Yang J, Byeon HK. Recent developments of ICG-Guided sentinel lymph node mapping in oral cancer. Diagnostics 2021;11:891.
67. Korn JM, Tellez-Diaz A, Bartz-Kurycki M, Gastman B. Indocyanine green SPY elite-assisted sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous melanoma. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:914-22.
68. Christensen A, Juhl K, Charabi B, et al. Feasibility of real-time near-infrared fluorescence tracer imaging in sentinel node biopsy for oral cavity cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:565-72.
69. Giammarile F, Schilling C, Gnanasegaran G, et al. The EANM practical guidelines for sentinel lymph node localisation in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:623-37.
70. Capote-Moreno A, Naval L, Muñoz-Guerra MF, Sastre J, Rodríguez-Campo FJ. Prognostic factors influencing contralateral neck lymph node metastases in oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:268-75.
71. Flach GB, Broglie MA, van Schie A, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in the previously treated neck. Oral Oncol 2012;48:85-9.
72. de Veij Mestdagh PD, Schreuder WH, Vogel WV, et al. Mapping of sentinel lymph node drainage using SPECT/CT to tailor elective nodal irradiation in head and neck cancer patients (SUSPECT-2): a single-center prospective trial. BMC Cancer 2019;19:1110.
73. Sharma D, Koshy G, Grover S, Sharma B. Sentinel lymph node biopsy: a new approach in the management of head and neck cancers. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2017;17:e3-e10.
74. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:24-35.
75. Fakhry C, Westra WH, Li S, et al. Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:261-9.
76. Rischin D, Young RJ, Fisher R, et al. Prognostic significance of p16INK4A and human papillomavirus in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated on TROG 02.02 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4142-8.
77. Lassen P, Eriksen JG, Krogdahl A, et al. Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA). The influence of HPV-associated p16-expression on accelerated fractionated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: evaluation of the randomised DAHANCA 6&7 trial. Radiother Oncol 2011;100:49-55.
78. Posner MR, Lorch JH, Goloubeva O, et al. Survival and human papillomavirus in oropharynx cancer in TAX 324: a subset analysis from an international phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1071-7.
79. O'Sullivan B, Huang SH, Siu LL, et al. Deintensification candidate subgroups in human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer according to minimal risk of distant metastasis. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:543-50.
80. Sher DJ, Adelstein DJ, Bajaj GK, et al. Radiation therapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Executive summary of an ASTRO evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017;7:246-53.
81. Thomas CM, Khan MN, Mohan R, et al. Lymphatic mapping with SPECT-CT for evaluation of contralateral drainage in lateralized oropharyngeal cancers using an awake injection technique. Head Neck 2020;42:385-93.
82. van den Bosch S, Takes RP, de Ridder M, et al. Personalized neck irradiation guided by sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx with a clinically negative neck: (Chemo)radiotherapy to the PRIMary tumor only. Protocol of the PRIMO study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024;44:100696.
83. Den Toom IJ, Heuveling DA, Flach GB, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for early-stage oral cavity cancer: the VU University Medical Center experience. Head Neck 2015;37:573-8.
84. den Toom IJ, Boeve K, van Weert S, et al. High rate of unexpected lymphatic drainage patterns and a high accuracy of the sentinel lymph node biopsy in oral cancer after previous neck treatment. Oral Oncol 2019;94:68-72.
85. Hart RD, Henry E, Nasser JG, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in N0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx in patients previously treated with surgery or radiation therapy: a pilot study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:806-9.
86. Pitman KT, Johnson JT, Brown ML, Myers EN. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2101-13.
87. Stoffels I, Leyh J, Pöppel T, Schadendorf D, Klode J. Evaluation of a radioactive and fluorescent hybrid tracer for sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck malignancies: prospective randomized clinical trial to compare ICG-(99m)Tc-nanocolloid hybrid tracer versus (99m)Tc-nanocolloid. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:1631-8.
88. Vorburger MS, Broglie MA, Soltermann A, et al. Validity of frozen section in sentinel lymph node biopsy for the staging in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2012;106:816-9.
89. Schilling C, Shaw R, Schache A, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for oral squamous cell carcinoma. Where are we now? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;55:757-62.
90. Broglie MA, Haerle SK, Huber GF, Haile SR, Stoeckli SJ. Occult metastases detected by sentinel node biopsy in patients with early oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas: impact on survival. Head Neck 2013;35:660-6.
91. Ferris RL, Xi L, Seethala RR, et al. Intraoperative qRT-PCR for detection of lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:1858-66.
92. Marcinow AM, Hall N, Byrum E, Teknos TN, Old MO, Agrawal A. Use of a novel receptor-targeted (CD206) radiotracer, 99mTc-tilmanocept, and SPECT/CT for sentinel lymph node detection in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: initial institutional report in an ongoing phase 3 study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:895-902.
93. Mermod M, Jourdan EF, Gupta R, et al. Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model for the identification of occult lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2020;42:1811-20.
Cite This Article
Open Access
How to Cite
Chan, K.; Saltagi, M.; Choi, K. Y. The emerging role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinomas. Plast. Aesthet. Res. 2024, 11, 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2023.79
Download Citation
Export Citation File:
Type of Import
Tips on Downloading Citation
Citation Manager File Format
Type of Import
Direct Import: When the Direct Import option is selected (the default state), a dialogue box will give you the option to Save or Open the downloaded citation data. Choosing Open will either launch your citation manager or give you a choice of applications with which to use the metadata. The Save option saves the file locally for later use.
Indirect Import: When the Indirect Import option is selected, the metadata is displayed and may be copied and pasted as needed.
About This Article
Special Issue
Copyright
Data & Comments
Data
0
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.