ArticleBMC cancer2024
Sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2N0 minor salivary gland cancer in oral cavity.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Distribution of Sentinel Nodes in Non-Parotid Salivary Gland Tumors-A Feasibility Study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in cT1/2N0 minor salivary gland cancer (mSGC) located within the oral cavity.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with cT1/2N0 oral mSGC, who were categorized into two groups based on neck management approaches. The impact of SLNB versus observation on regional control and overall survival was assessed using a Cox model.
resultsA total of 177 patients were included in the study, with 53 cases undergoing SLNB. All patients had at least one sentinel lymph node, with the majority having two sentinel lymph nodes. The sentinel lymph nodes were predominantly situated in level I, followed by level II. Four patients had positive sentinel lymph nodes, all of whom had primary tumors in the tongue or the floor of the mouth, and were classified as cT2 stage. This yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, a false negative rate of 0%, and a negative predictive value of 100% for SLNB in predicting occult metastasis. In terms of regional control, SLNB exhibited a reduced hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.96) compared to observation. However, SLNB did not confer a superior overall survival benefit compared to observation.
conclusionIn patients with cT1/2N0 oral mSGC, SLNB proved to be both technically feasible and oncologically safe. When contrasted with observation, SLNB was associated with enhanced regional control, particularly recommending its use for cases of cT2 mSGC arising from the tongue or the floor of the mouth.
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.