OBJECTIVES: Lymph node status is an important prognostic factor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the vulva. Complete inguinofemoral lymph node dissection (ILND) is accompanied by a high morbidity. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was established for less invasive lymph node (LN) staging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety of SLNB in terms of accuracy and outcome in a clinical routine setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent SLNB and/or ILND for vulvar SCC in the years 1990-2007. Clinical follow-up was evaluated for histological nodal-negative patients with tumor stage T1 or T2. The false negative rate of SLNB was determined in patients who underwent both SLNB and ILND. RESULTS: Preoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) visualization by scintigraphy was successful in 95% of all patients. SLNB was false negative in 1/45 inguinae (2.2%). All SLN were detected intraoperatively. During the follow-up period (median 24 months for SLNB and 111 months for ILND), no groin recurrences in initially nodal negative patients occurred (n=34, 59 inguinae). Transient lymph edema occurred in 7/18 patients after ILND (39%) and 2/16 patients (13%) after SLNB. No persistent edemas were found after SLNB and ILND. CONCLUSION: According to our experience SLNB is feasible and accurately predicts LN status of vulvar SCC under clinical routine conditions. SLNB in vulvar cancer seems to be a safe alternative to ILND in order to reduce morbidity of surgical treatment.
OBJECTIVES: Lymph node status is an important prognostic factor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the vulva. Complete inguinofemoral lymph node dissection (ILND) is accompanied by a high morbidity. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was established for less invasive lymph node (LN) staging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety of SLNB in terms of accuracy and outcome in a clinical routine setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent SLNB and/or ILND for vulvar SCC in the years 1990-2007. Clinical follow-up was evaluated for histological nodal-negative patients with tumor stage T1 or T2. The false negative rate of SLNB was determined in patients who underwent both SLNB and ILND. RESULTS: Preoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) visualization by scintigraphy was successful in 95% of all patients. SLNB was false negative in 1/45 inguinae (2.2%). All SLN were detected intraoperatively. During the follow-up period (median 24 months for SLNB and 111 months for ILND), no groin recurrences in initially nodal negative patients occurred (n=34, 59 inguinae). Transient lymph edema occurred in 7/18 patients after ILND (39%) and 2/16 patients (13%) after SLNB. No persistent edemas were found after SLNB and ILND. CONCLUSION: According to our experience SLNB is feasible and accurately predicts LN status of vulvar SCC under clinical routine conditions. SLNB in vulvar cancer seems to be a safe alternative to ILND in order to reduce morbidity of surgical treatment.
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Alessandro Buda; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: B E Schaafsma; F P R Verbeek; A A W Peters; J R van der Vorst; C D de Kroon; M I E van Poelgeest; J B M Z Trimbos; C J H van de Velde; J V Frangioni; A L Vahrmeijer; K N Gaarenstroom Journal: BJOG Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Ryan L Neff; Cathy M Mojzisik; David M O'Malley; George H Hinkle; Nathan C Hall; Douglas A Murrey; Michael V Knopp; Edward W Martin Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.754
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: Franziska Siegenthaler; Sara Imboden; Laura Knabben; Stefan Mohr; Andrea Papadia; Michael D Mueller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: C Meads; A J Sutton; A N Rosenthal; S Małysiak; M Kowalska; A Zapalska; E Rogozińska; P Baldwin; R Ganesan; E Borowiack; P Barton; T Roberts; K Khan; S Sundar Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sara Imboden; Andrea Papadia; Mélina Nauwerk; Brett McKinnon; Zahraa Kollmann; Stefan Mohr; Susanne Lanz; Michael D Mueller Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 5.344