Response to "sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Versus Elective Neck Dissection in Patients with Ct1-2N0 Oral Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma".
Quan Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.01.025
2014-01-01
Abstract:Thank you for the interest in our article. We would like to answer the questions point by point.Question (Q): A 10-year follow-up might have been convincing, but if the case selection is biased, it will be misleading. One of the major misleading results published was mentioning 2 contralateral level II lymph nodes in Table II despite that the method mentioned was unilateral neck dissection and that it was performed on a cN0 tongue cancer; it is against a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guideline if an unnecessary contralateral neck dissection was performed.Answer (A): According to the NCCN guideline, patients with clinically diagnosed T1-2 N0 oral tongue carcinoma should receive “Resection of primary (preferred) ± ipsilateral or bilateral neck dissection” or “Definitive RT.” The research object in our study is cT1-2 N0 oral tongue carcinoma, and there were 2 contralateral level II sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in Table II in our article. An SLN is any node that receives lymph drainage directly from the primary tumor site, which is most likely to contain malignancy if the tumor has metastasized. Therefore, if an SLN is in the contralateral neck, contralateral neck dissection is reasonable.Q: In terms of comparison between the sentinel and control groups, they are heterogeneous; the lack of similarities makes their comparison questionable.A: Patients who presented with unique T1 or T2 oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma, with necks clinically and radiologically staged as N0, and who were treated surgically in the same hospital during the same period, were enrolled in the study. Gender, age, and pathologic grade data for the 2 groups are shown in Table I. We believe that the baseline is indiscriminate statistically between the 2 groups, so they are comparable.Q: The examination of lymph nodes was performed with multiple sections stained with hematoxylin-eosin. I agree that hematoxylin-eosin is the gold standard in determining a positive node, but a micrometastasis requires continuous sectioning, which was not performed; thus, any occult metastasis might have been skipped, leading to bias.A: We described in detail about this question in the fifth paragraph of the Discussion section.Q: Last but not least, the authors mentioned that an SLN was identified by both blue dye and radioactivity after a 2- to 3-cm skin incision was performed. I understand that it would be impossible for the blue dye tracer to be seen over intact skin, but I am doubtful about how the authors determined where to place a small skin incision. Not all blue-dyed lymph node will be exposed within the surgical field, and some might be left behind; this likely created a false-negative, biased result.A: In our article, we explained, “After a few minutes, a 2- to 3-cm incision was made on the neck at the site marked by a skin marker.” The site, which was not large, was identified by radioactivity; moreover, we needed to seek blue-dyed lymph node only in the site that was identified by radioactivity. There was no need to expose all of the neck.Thank you very much for your esteemed opinions on our article. Thank you for the interest in our article. We would like to answer the questions point by point. Question (Q): A 10-year follow-up might have been convincing, but if the case selection is biased, it will be misleading. One of the major misleading results published was mentioning 2 contralateral level II lymph nodes in Table II despite that the method mentioned was unilateral neck dissection and that it was performed on a cN0 tongue cancer; it is against a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guideline if an unnecessary contralateral neck dissection was performed. Answer (A): According to the NCCN guideline, patients with clinically diagnosed T1-2 N0 oral tongue carcinoma should receive “Resection of primary (preferred) ± ipsilateral or bilateral neck dissection” or “Definitive RT.” The research object in our study is cT1-2 N0 oral tongue carcinoma, and there were 2 contralateral level II sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in Table II in our article. An SLN is any node that receives lymph drainage directly from the primary tumor site, which is most likely to contain malignancy if the tumor has metastasized. Therefore, if an SLN is in the contralateral neck, contralateral neck dissection is reasonable. Q: In terms of comparison between the sentinel and control groups, they are heterogeneous; the lack of similarities makes their comparison questionable. A: Patients who presented with unique T1 or T2 oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma, with necks clinically and radiologically staged as N0, and who were treated surgically in the same hospital during the same period, were enrolled in the study. Gender, age, and pathologic grade data for the 2 groups are shown in Table I. We believe that the baseline is indiscriminate statistically between the 2 groups, so they are comparable. Q: The examination of lymph nodes was performed with multiple sections stained with hematoxylin-eosin. I agree that hematoxylin-eosin is the gold standard in determining a positive node, but a micrometastasis requires continuous sectioning, which was not performed; thus, any occult metastasis might have been skipped, leading to bias. A: We described in detail about this question in the fifth paragraph of the Discussion section. Q: Last but not least, the authors mentioned that an SLN was identified by both blue dye and radioactivity after a 2- to 3-cm skin incision was performed. I understand that it would be impossible for the blue dye tracer to be seen over intact skin, but I am doubtful about how the authors determined where to place a small skin incision. Not all blue-dyed lymph node will be exposed within the surgical field, and some might be left behind; this likely created a false-negative, biased result. A: In our article, we explained, “After a few minutes, a 2- to 3-cm incision was made on the neck at the site marked by a skin marker.” The site, which was not large, was identified by radioactivity; moreover, we needed to seek blue-dyed lymph node only in the site that was identified by radioactivity. There was no need to expose all of the neck. Thank you very much for your esteemed opinions on our article. Comments on “Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus elective neck dissection in patients with cT1-2 N0 oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma”Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral RadiologyVol. 117Issue 5PreviewHaving a special interest in sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), and especially their application in head and neck carcinoma, I read with interest the article by Fan et al.1 Although I appreciate their hard work in long-term follow-up, I feel that the article is confusing and is reporting on biased data. A 10-year follow-up might have been convincing, but if the case selection is biased, it will be misleading. Full-Text PDF