ReviewCurrent oncology reports2022
Critical Review of the Current Evidence on Sentinel Node Biopsy in Oral Cancer.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Machine Learning to Detect Occult Neck Lymph Node Metastases in Early-Stage (T1-T2/N0) Oral Cavity Carcinomas.Head & neck · 2025Article
- Article
- Piceatannol induces apoptotic cell death through activation of caspase-dependent pathway and upregulation of ROS-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction in pancreatic cancer cells.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWith contemporary surgery of the cN0 neck in early oral cancer becoming more selective, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is gaining popularity as a possible alternate option to elective neck dissection (END). This review attempts to critically appraise the current evidence and highlight pertinent arguments for the use of SNB in early oral cancers. RECENT
findingsBased on the recent randomized trials, it is imperative to perform an END at the time of primary resection in cN0 oral cancers. The much criticized false negative rate of SNB can be argued to be equal to the regional failure rate after END for pN0 necks, possibly making a case for SNB due to the reduction in number of neck dissections. There still lies ambiguity on the technique, protocols, and benefit of SNB over END. The role of extended histopathological techniques and the implications of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells for treatment intensification remain questionable. Currently, SNB is an intermediary between routine imaging and END that needs to evolve before it can become a practice changing alternative to END itself. More efforts are needed in standardizing the protocols for SNB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.