A Comprehensive Grading System for a Magnetic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Procedure in Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

A magnetic sentinel lymph node biopsy ((SLN)B) procedure has recently been shown feasible in oral cancer patients. However, a grading system is absent for proper identification and classification, and thus for clinical reporting. Based on data from eight complete magnetic SLNB procedures, we propose a provisional grading system. This grading system includes: (1) a qualitative five-point grading scale for MRI evaluation to describe iron uptake by LNs; (2) an ex vivo count of resected SLN with a magnetic probe to quantify iron amount; and (3) a qualitative five-point grading scale for histopathologic examination of excised magnetic SLNs. Most SLNs with iron uptake were identified and detected in level II. In this level, most variance in grading was seen for MRI and histopathology; MRI and medullar sinus were especially highly graded, and cortical sinus was mainly low graded. On average 82 ± 58 µg iron accumulated in harvested SLNs, and there were no significant differences in injected tracer dose (22.4 mg or 11.2 mg iron). In conclusion, a first step was taken in defining a comprehensive grading system to gain more insight into the lymphatic draining system during a magnetic SLNB procedure.

A complete magnetic sentinel lymph node biopsy procedure in oral cancer patients: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and merits of a complete magnetic approach for a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) procedure in oral cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included ten oral cancer patients (stage cT1-T2N0M0) scheduled for elective neck dissection (END). Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIO) were administered peritumorally prior to surgery. A preoperative MRI was acquired to identify lymph nodes (LNs) with iron uptake. A magnetic detector was used to identify magnetic hotspots prior, during, and after the SLNB procedure. The resected sentinel LNs (SLNs) were evaluated using step-serial sectioning, and the neck dissection specimen was assessed by routine histopathological examination. A postoperative MRI was acquired to observe any residual iron. RESULTS: Of ten primary tumors, eight were located in the tongue, one floor-of-mouth (FOM), and one tongue-FOM transition. SPIO injections were experienced as painful by nine patients, two of whom developed a tongue swelling. In eight patients, magnetic SLNs were successfully detected and excised during the magnetic SLNB procedure. During the END procedure, additional magnetic SLNs were identified in three patients. Histopathology confirmed iron deposits in sinuses of excised SLNs. Three SLNs were harboring metastases, of which one was identified only during the END procedure. The END specimens revealed no further metastases. CONCLUSION: A complete magnetic SLNB procedure was successfully performed in eight of ten patients (80% success rate), therefore the procedure seems feasible. Recommendations for further investigation are made including: use of anesthetics, magnetic tracer volume, planning preoperative MRI, comparison to conventional technique and follow-up.

Variation in Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care: Impact of Patient and Hospital Characteristics.

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients' perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%-98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%-100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement.