Abdulrahman K Sinno1, Amanda Nickles Fader1, Kara Long Roche1, Robert L Giuntoli1, Edward J Tanner2. 1. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: etanner4@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to compare the ability to detect sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in women with endometrial cancer (EC) or complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH) using fluorometric imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) versus colorimetric imaging with isosulfan blue (ISB). METHODS: Women underwent SLN mapping, with either ISB or ICG, during robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RA-TLH) from September 2012 to March 2014. SLNs were submitted for permanent pathologic analysis. Completion lymphadenectomy and ultrastaging were performed according to institutional protocols. RESULTS: RA-TLH and SLN mapping was performed in 71 women; 64 had EC (64) and 7 had CAH. Age, body mass index (BMI), stage and tumor characteristics were similar in the ICG versus the ISB cohorts. Overall, SLNs were identified bilaterally (62.0%), unilaterally (21.1%), or neither (16.9%), and in 103 of 142 hemi-pelvises (72.5%). The mean number of SLNs retrieved per hemipelvis was 2.23(SD 1.7). SLNs were identified in the hypogastric (76.8%), external iliac (14.2%), common iliac (4.5%) and paraaortic (4.5%) regions. ICG mapped bilaterally in 78.9% of women compared with 42.4% of those injected with ISB (p=0.02). Five women (7%) had positive lymph nodes, all identified by the SLN protocol (false negative rate: 0%). On multivariate analysis, BMI was negatively correlated with bilateral mapping success (p=0.02). When stratified by dye type, the association with BMI was only significant for ISB (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence imaging with ICG may be superior to colorimetric imaging with ISB in women undergoing SLN mapping for endometrial cancer. SLN mapping success is negatively associated with increasing patient BMI only when ISB is used.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to compare the ability to detect sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in women with endometrial cancer (EC) or complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH) using fluorometric imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) versus colorimetric imaging with isosulfan blue (ISB). METHODS:Women underwent SLN mapping, with either ISB or ICG, during robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RA-TLH) from September 2012 to March 2014. SLNs were submitted for permanent pathologic analysis. Completion lymphadenectomy and ultrastaging were performed according to institutional protocols. RESULTS: RA-TLH and SLN mapping was performed in 71 women; 64 had EC (64) and 7 had CAH. Age, body mass index (BMI), stage and tumor characteristics were similar in the ICG versus the ISB cohorts. Overall, SLNs were identified bilaterally (62.0%), unilaterally (21.1%), or neither (16.9%), and in 103 of 142 hemi-pelvises (72.5%). The mean number of SLNs retrieved per hemipelvis was 2.23(SD 1.7). SLNs were identified in the hypogastric (76.8%), external iliac (14.2%), common iliac (4.5%) and paraaortic (4.5%) regions. ICG mapped bilaterally in 78.9% of women compared with 42.4% of those injected with ISB (p=0.02). Five women (7%) had positive lymph nodes, all identified by the SLN protocol (false negative rate: 0%). On multivariate analysis, BMI was negatively correlated with bilateral mapping success (p=0.02). When stratified by dye type, the association with BMI was only significant for ISB (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence imaging with ICG may be superior to colorimetric imaging with ISB in women undergoing SLN mapping for endometrial cancer. SLN mapping success is negatively associated with increasing patient BMI only when ISB is used.
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: 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: Ray R Zhang; Alexandra B Schroeder; Joseph J Grudzinski; Eben L Rosenthal; Jason M Warram; Anatoly N Pinchuk; Kevin W Eliceiri; John S Kuo; Jamey P Weichert Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jason D Wright; Stephanie Cham; Ling Chen; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Vrunda Desai; Jim C Hu; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 8.661
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: 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: 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: Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Jen Ducie; Narisha Ali; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; Giorgio Bogani; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 5.482