ArticleBMC oral health2026
Sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2N0 lip squamous cell carcinoma: site-specific diagnostic accuracy, anatomic mapping, and survival impact.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal management of the clinically node-negative (cN0) neck in early-stage (cT1-2) lip squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) remains controversial. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) offers a minimally invasive staging alternative to observation or elective neck dissection, but its diagnostic accuracy, lymphatic mapping patterns, and survival impact in lip SCC are not well-established.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 101 patients with cT1-2N0 lip SCC treated at a tertiary cancer center (2005–2022), comparing SLNB-guided management (n = 46) to observation (n = 55). Diagnostic performance of SLNB was evaluated against final histopathology. Lymphatic mapping was performed using lymphoscintigraphy/SPECT and gamma probe. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression, with sensitivity analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
resultsSLNB achieved a 100% detection rate and a mean yield of 3.0 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) per patient. Overall sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9–99.6%) with a false-negative rate (FNR) of 16.7%. Stratified by location, SLNB demonstrated 100% sensitivity (FNR 0%) for lower lip/midline tumors, but sensitivity decreased to 66.7% (FNR 33.3%) for upper lip tumors. Level I was the most common drainage site. Notably, facial lymph node involvement was frequently observed, particularly in lower lip SCC. SLNB was associated with significantly improved regional control compared to observation (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65–0.99, p = 0.046), with poorly differentiated histology also predicting worse regional control (HR 2.18, p = 0.018). However, no significant overall survival benefit was observed for SLNB (p = 0.193). IPTW analysis confirmed the regional control benefit.
conclusionIn cT1-2N0 lip SCC, SLNB demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy, particularly for lower lip tumors, and significantly improves regional control compared to observation, while OS benefits remain unproven. Anatomic mapping reveals distinct drainage patterns and highlights the potential importance of facial lymph nodes. These findings suggest SLNB might act as a precise staging tool to guide neck management in early-stage lip SCC.
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.