PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and clinical utility of the sentinel node procedure in early-stage vulvar cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational study on sentinel node detection using radioactive tracer and blue dye was performed in patients with T1/2 (< 4 cm) squamous cell cancer of the vulva. When the sentinel node was found to be negative at pathologic ultrastaging, inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy was omitted, and the patient was observed with follow-up for 2 years at intervals of every 2 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS: From March 2000 until June 2006, a sentinel node procedure was performed in 623 groins of 403 assessable patients. In 259 patients with unifocal vulvar disease and a negative sentinel node (median follow-up time, 35 months), six groin recurrences were diagnosed (2.3%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 5%), and 3-year survival rate was 97% (95% CI, 91% to 99%). Short-term morbidity was decreased in patients after sentinel node dissection only when compared with patients with a positive sentinel node who underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (wound breakdown in groin: 11.7% v 34.0%, respectively; P < .0001; and cellulitis: 4.5% v 21.3%, respectively; P < .0001). Long-term morbidity also was less frequently observed after removal of only the sentinel node compared with sentinel node removal and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (recurrent erysipelas: 0.4% v 16.2%, respectively; P < .0001; and lymphedema of the legs: 1.9% v 25.2%, respectively; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In early-stage vulvar cancer patients with a negative sentinel node, the groin recurrence rate is low, survival is excellent, and treatment-related morbidity is minimal. We suggest that sentinel node dissection, performed by a quality-controlled multidisciplinary team, should be part of the standard treatment in selected patients with early-stage vulvar cancer.
PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and clinical utility of the sentinel node procedure in early-stage vulvar cancerpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational study on sentinel node detection using radioactive tracer and blue dye was performed in patients with T1/2 (< 4 cm) squamous cell cancer of the vulva. When the sentinel node was found to be negative at pathologic ultrastaging, inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy was omitted, and the patient was observed with follow-up for 2 years at intervals of every 2 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS: From March 2000 until June 2006, a sentinel node procedure was performed in 623 groins of 403 assessable patients. In 259 patients with unifocal vulvar disease and a negative sentinel node (median follow-up time, 35 months), six groin recurrences were diagnosed (2.3%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 5%), and 3-year survival rate was 97% (95% CI, 91% to 99%). Short-term morbidity was decreased in patients after sentinel node dissection only when compared with patients with a positive sentinel node who underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (wound breakdown in groin: 11.7% v 34.0%, respectively; P < .0001; and cellulitis: 4.5% v 21.3%, respectively; P < .0001). Long-term morbidity also was less frequently observed after removal of only the sentinel node compared with sentinel node removal and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (recurrent erysipelas: 0.4% v 16.2%, respectively; P < .0001; and lymphedema of the legs: 1.9% v 25.2%, respectively; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In early-stage vulvar cancerpatients with a negative sentinel node, the groin recurrence rate is low, survival is excellent, and treatment-related morbidity is minimal. We suggest that sentinel node dissection, performed by a quality-controlled multidisciplinary team, should be part of the standard treatment in selected patients with early-stage vulvar cancer.
Authors: Angela Collarino; Maarten L Donswijk; Willemien J van Driel; Marcel P Stokkel; Renato A Valdés Olmos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H G Schnürch; S Ackermann; C D Alt; J Barinoff; C Böing; C Dannecker; F Gieseking; A Günthert; P Hantschmann; L C Horn; R Kürzl; P Mallmann; S Marnitz; G Mehlhorn; C C Hack; M C Koch; U Torsten; W Weikel; L Wölber; M Hampl Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Floris P R Verbeek; Quirijn R J G Tummers; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Alexander A W Peters; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Cornelis J H van de Velde; John V Frangioni; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Katja N Gaarenstroom; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Anna L Beavis; Sergio Salazar-Marioni; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Rebecca L Stone; Amanda N Fader; Antonio Santillan-Gomez; Edward J Tanner Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tarik Z Belhocine; Michel Prefontaine; Dominique Lanvin; Monique Bertrand; Irina Rachinsky; Helen Ettler; Pamela Zabel; Larry W Stitt; Akira Sugimoto; Jean-Luc Urbain Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-03-08