OBJECTIVE: To determine the false-negative rate of a surgical sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping algorithm that incorporates more than just removing SLNs in detecting metastatic endometrial cancer. METHODS: A prospective database of all patients who underwent lymphatic mapping for endometrial cancer was reviewed. Cervical injection of blue dye was used in all cases. The surgical algorithm is as follows: 1) peritoneal and serosal evaluation and washings; 2) retroperitoneal evaluation including excision of all mapped SLNs and suspicious nodes regardless of mapping; and 3) if there is no mapping on a hemi-pelvis, a side-specific pelvic, common iliac, and interiliac lymph node dissection (LND) is performed. Paraaortic LND is performed at the attendings' discretion. The algorithm was retrospectively applied. RESULTS: From 9/2005 to 4/2011, 498 patients received a blue dye cervical injection for SLN mapping. At least one LN was removed in 95% of cases (474/498); at least one SLN was identified in 81% (401/498). SLN correctly diagnosed 40/47 patients with nodal metastases who had at least one SLN mapped, resulting in a 15% false-negative rate. After applying the algorithm, the false-negative rate dropped to 2%. Only one patient, whose LN spread would not have been caught by the algorithm, had an isolated positive right paraaortic LN with a negative ipsilateral SLN and pelvic LND. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory SLN mapping in endometrial cancer requires adherence to a surgical SLN algorithm and goes beyond just the removal of blue SLNs. Removal of any suspicious node along with side-specific lymphadenectomy for failed mapping are an integral part of this algorithm. Further validation of the false-negative rate of this algorithm is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the false-negative rate of a surgical sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping algorithm that incorporates more than just removing SLNs in detecting metastatic endometrial cancer. METHODS: A prospective database of all patients who underwent lymphatic mapping for endometrial cancer was reviewed. Cervical injection of blue dye was used in all cases. The surgical algorithm is as follows: 1) peritoneal and serosal evaluation and washings; 2) retroperitoneal evaluation including excision of all mapped SLNs and suspicious nodes regardless of mapping; and 3) if there is no mapping on a hemi-pelvis, a side-specific pelvic, common iliac, and interiliac lymph node dissection (LND) is performed. Paraaortic LND is performed at the attendings' discretion. The algorithm was retrospectively applied. RESULTS: From 9/2005 to 4/2011, 498 patients received a blue dye cervical injection for SLN mapping. At least one LN was removed in 95% of cases (474/498); at least one SLN was identified in 81% (401/498). SLN correctly diagnosed 40/47 patients with nodal metastases who had at least one SLN mapped, resulting in a 15% false-negative rate. After applying the algorithm, the false-negative rate dropped to 2%. Only one patient, whose LN spread would not have been caught by the algorithm, had an isolated positive right paraaortic LN with a negative ipsilateral SLN and pelvic LND. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory SLN mapping in endometrial cancer requires adherence to a surgical SLN algorithm and goes beyond just the removal of blue SLNs. Removal of any suspicious node along with side-specific lymphadenectomy for failed mapping are an integral part of this algorithm. Further validation of the false-negative rate of this algorithm is necessary.
Authors: Rudy S Suidan; Charlotte C Sun; Scott B Cantor; Andrea Mariani; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Karen H Lu; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Margaret Montovano; Anna Beavis; Robert A Soslow; Qin Zhou; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner; Oliver Zivanovic; Richard R Barakat; Carol L Brown; Douglas A Levine; Yukio Sonoda; Mario M Leitao; Elizabeth L Jewell Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joyce N Barlin; Robert A Soslow; Megan Lutz; Qin C Zhou; Caryn M St Clair; Mario M Leitao; Alexia Iasonos; Martee L Hensley; Richard R Barakat; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Maria Luisa Gasparri; Donatella Caserta; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Andrea Papadia; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Elizabeth L Jewell; Juan Juan Huang; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner; Carol L Brown; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Douglas A Levine; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Floor J Backes; John F Boggess; Walter H Gotlieb; W Jeffrey Lowery; Emma C Rossi; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca J Wolsky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Christine H Kim; Fady Khoury-Collado; Emma L Barber; Robert A Soslow; Vicky Makker; Mario M Leitao; Yukio Sonoda; Kaled M Alektiar; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jennifer J Mueller; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Kenya Braxton; Kaled M Alektiar; Mario M Leitao; Carol Aghajanian; Lora H Ellenson; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.482