Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35298797›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2022

Critical Review of the Current Evidence on Sentinel Node Biopsy in Oral Cancer.

Arjun Singh, Satadru Roy, Vidisha Tuljapurkar, Deepa Nair, Pankaj Chaturvedi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arjun SinghHead and Neck Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital and HBNI, Mumbai, India.
Satadru RoyHead and Neck Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Mumbai, India.
Vidisha TuljapurkarHead and Neck Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Mumbai, India.
Deepa NairHead and Neck Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Mumbai, India.
Pankaj ChaturvediHead and Neck Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital and HBNI, Mumbai, India. chautrvedi.pankaj@gmail.com.
Tata Memorial Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Carcinoma, Squamous CellMouth NeoplasmsHumansNeck DissectionNeoplasm StagingSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyEarly oral cancerN0 neckNeck dissectionNode negative neckSentinel node biopsySNB

Identifiers

PMID35298797
OpenAlexW4221036454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.