BACKGROUND: The technique of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in patients with colorectal cancer varies between reports, and the optimal method has not been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal injection technique for SLN mapping. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer were enrolled. The SLNs was identified intraoperatively by subserosal blue dye injection (in vivo) or by submucosal injection after standard colectomy (ex vivo). If negative by conventional hematoxylin and eosin staining analysis, all lymph nodes, SLNs and non-SLNs, were subjected to further analysis by multi-level section and immunohistochemical examination. RESULTS: The in vivo and ex vivo injected groups were similar in demographic character, tumor size, and histological grade. The mean number of SLNs identified was 2.3 in the in vivo group and 2.6 in the ex vivo group (p = 0.192). The detection rate of SLNs by blue dye injection was somewhat higher in the ex vivo group than in the in vivo group: 90.6 vs. 81.1% (p = 0.219). The false-negative rate was 23.5% for the in vivo group and 13.3% for the ex vivo group (p = 0.392). The upstaging rate, which was 18.5% overall, was similar in both groups (p = 0.538). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ex vivo blue dye injection is an effective alternative to in vivo injection for identifying SLNs in patients with colorectal cancer. Because of its simplicity and applicability in routine clinical settings, further investigation of the ex vivo mapping technique is warranted.
BACKGROUND: The technique of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in patients with colorectal cancer varies between reports, and the optimal method has not been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal injection technique for SLN mapping. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer were enrolled. The SLNs was identified intraoperatively by subserosal blue dye injection (in vivo) or by submucosal injection after standard colectomy (ex vivo). If negative by conventional hematoxylin and eosin staining analysis, all lymph nodes, SLNs and non-SLNs, were subjected to further analysis by multi-level section and immunohistochemical examination. RESULTS: The in vivo and ex vivo injected groups were similar in demographic character, tumor size, and histological grade. The mean number of SLNs identified was 2.3 in the in vivo group and 2.6 in the ex vivo group (p = 0.192). The detection rate of SLNs by blue dye injection was somewhat higher in the ex vivo group than in the in vivo group: 90.6 vs. 81.1% (p = 0.219). The false-negative rate was 23.5% for the in vivo group and 13.3% for the ex vivo group (p = 0.392). The upstaging rate, which was 18.5% overall, was similar in both groups (p = 0.538). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ex vivo blue dye injection is an effective alternative to in vivo injection for identifying SLNs in patients with colorectal cancer. Because of its simplicity and applicability in routine clinical settings, further investigation of the ex vivo mapping technique is warranted.
Authors: Alexander Stojadinovic; Peter J Allen; Mladjan Protic; John F Potter; Craig D Shriver; Jeffrey M Nelson; George E Peoples Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Anton J Bilchik; Maggie DiNome; Sukamal Saha; Roderick R Turner; David Wiese; Martin McCarter; Dave S B Hoon; Donald L Morton Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2006-06
Authors: A Bembenek; B Rau; T Moesta; J Markwardt; C Ulmer; S Gretschel; U Schneider; W Slisow; P M Schlag Pm Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Anton J Bilchik; Dave S B Hoon; Sukamal Saha; Roderick R Turner; David Wiese; Maggie DiNome; Kazuo Koyanagi; Martin McCarter; Perry Shen; Douglas Iddings; Steven L Chen; Maria Gonzalez; David Elashoff; Donald L Morton Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; C M Tangen; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; C M Tangen; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick; M H Veeder; J A Mailliard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-03-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andreas E Bembenek; Robert Rosenberg; Elke Wagler; Stephan Gretschel; Andreas Sendler; Joerg-Ruediger Siewert; Jörg Nährig; Helmut Witzigmann; Johann Hauss; Christian Knorr; Arno Dimmler; Jörn Gröne; Heinz-Johannes Buhr; Jörg Haier; Hermann Herbst; Juergen Tepel; Bence Siphos; Axel Kleespies; Alfred Koenigsrainer; Nikolas H Stoecklein; Olaf Horstmann; Robert Grützmann; Andreas Imdahl; Daniel Svoboda; Christian Wittekind; Wolfgang Schneider; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Peter M Schlag Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alexander Stojadinovic; Aviram Nissan; Mladjan Protic; Carol F Adair; Diana Prus; Slavica Usaj; Robin S Howard; Dragan Radovanovic; Milan Breberina; Craig D Shriver; Ronit Grinbaum; Jeffery M Nelson; Tommy A Brown; Herbert R Freund; John F Potter; Tamar Peretz; George E Peoples Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Helene Schou Andersen; Astrid Louise Bjørn Bennedsen; Stefan Kobbelgaard Burgdorf; Jens Ravn Eriksen; Susanne Eiholm; Anders Toxværd; Lene Buhl Riis; Jacob Rosenberg; Ismail Gögenur Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: M Ankersmit; H J Bonjer; G Hannink; L J Schoonmade; M H G M van der Pas; W J H J Meijerink Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.781