Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHornstra, Marije T
dc.contributor.authorAlkureishi, Lee W T
dc.contributor.authorRoss, Gary L
dc.contributor.authorShoaib, Taimur
dc.contributor.authorSoutar, David S
dc.date.accessioned2009-04-01T23:13:37Z
dc.date.available2009-04-01T23:13:37Z
dc.date.issued2008-07
dc.identifier.citationPredictive factors for failure to identify sentinel nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. 2008, 30 (7):858-62 Head Necken
dc.identifier.issn1097-0347
dc.identifier.pmid18302276
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hed.20787
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/58688
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to ascertain which factors determine success of sentinel node biopsy (SNB). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 121 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma undergoing SNB to stage the neck. All patients underwent the triple-diagnostic procedure of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy, intraoperative blue dye, and a gamma probe. Factors contributing to failure of SNB were identified. RESULTS: SNB was unsuccessful in 12 of 121 patients (10%). Seven of the 12 patients had cT1/cT2 tumors, and 6 of these were located in the floor of mouth. SN identification was more likely to be successful in patients with cN0 necks, but this did not reach statistical significance (92% vs 84%, p = .268). Factors associated with failure included T classification (p = .01), tumor site (p = .05), and negative preoperative lymphoscintigraphy (p = .0174). CONCLUSION: Successful sentinel lymph node harvest is related to primary tumor site, T classification, and the presence of nodes on preoperative lymphoscintigraphy.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectSquamous Cellen
dc.subjectHead and Neck Canceren
dc.subjectMouth Canceren
dc.subject.meshAdult
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Squamous Cell
dc.subject.meshChi-Square Distribution
dc.subject.meshCohort Studies
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHead and Neck Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshImmunohistochemistry
dc.subject.meshLymph Nodes
dc.subject.meshLymphatic Metastasis
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshNeoplasm Invasiveness
dc.subject.meshNeoplasm Staging
dc.subject.meshPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subject.meshPreoperative Care
dc.subject.meshProbability
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studies
dc.subject.meshRisk Assessment
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subject.meshSentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysis
dc.subject.meshTreatment Failure
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
dc.titlePredictive factors for failure to identify sentinel nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentPlastic Surgery Unit, Canniesburn Hospital, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, United Kingdom.en
dc.identifier.journalHead & Necken
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to ascertain which factors determine success of sentinel node biopsy (SNB). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 121 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma undergoing SNB to stage the neck. All patients underwent the triple-diagnostic procedure of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy, intraoperative blue dye, and a gamma probe. Factors contributing to failure of SNB were identified. RESULTS: SNB was unsuccessful in 12 of 121 patients (10%). Seven of the 12 patients had cT1/cT2 tumors, and 6 of these were located in the floor of mouth. SN identification was more likely to be successful in patients with cN0 necks, but this did not reach statistical significance (92% vs 84%, p = .268). Factors associated with failure included T classification (p = .01), tumor site (p = .05), and negative preoperative lymphoscintigraphy (p = .0174). CONCLUSION: Successful sentinel lymph node harvest is related to primary tumor site, T classification, and the presence of nodes on preoperative lymphoscintigraphy.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record