J How1, W H Gotlieb2, J Z Press1, J Abitbol1, M Pelmus3, A Ferenczy3, S Probst4, R Gotlieb5, S Brin1, S Lau1. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada. Electronic address: walter.gotlieb@mcgill.ca. 3. Department of Pathology, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada. 5. Division of Experimental Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With the debate over extent of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer, sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping may provide a focused approach to evaluate the most relevant lymph nodes (LN) while minimizing the complications. We evaluated SLN mapping using filtered technetium(99), indocyanine green (ICG), and blue dye. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 100 patients who underwent SLN mapping by using submucosal and deep stromal cervical injections of technetium(99), ICG, and blue dye as part of the staging for endometrial cancer. RESULTS: 286 SLNs were mapped (2.9 per patient) in 92% of patients. The bilateral detection rate was 76%. ICG had a significantly higher SLN detection rate than blue dye in both overall (87% vs 71%, respectively; p=0.005) and bilateral (65% vs 43%, respectively; p=0.002) detection, but similar SLN detection rates compared to technetium(99) in both overall (87% vs 88%, respectively; p=0.83) and bilateral (65% vs 71%, respectively; p=0.36) detection. In eight cases, the SLN was in the para-aortic area and in 14 cases in the pre-sacral, hypogastric vein, or parametrial area. In nine cases, the SLN was positive for metastasis, and in seven cases the SLN was the only positive node. One SLN was falsely negative. No complications or anaphylactic reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: Intra-operative SLN mapping using cervical injection is feasible in patients with endometrial cancer and yields adequate detection rates. It allows mapping of SLNs in areas (pre-sacral, hypogastric vein, parametrial) not routinely sampled. Given the poorer performance of blue dye, surgeons may omit its use if a combination of ICG and technetium(99) is used.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With the debate over extent of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer, sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping may provide a focused approach to evaluate the most relevant lymph nodes (LN) while minimizing the complications. We evaluated SLN mapping using filtered technetium(99), indocyanine green (ICG), and blue dye. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 100 patients who underwent SLN mapping by using submucosal and deep stromal cervical injections of technetium(99), ICG, and blue dye as part of the staging for endometrial cancer. RESULTS: 286 SLNs were mapped (2.9 per patient) in 92% of patients. The bilateral detection rate was 76%. ICG had a significantly higher SLN detection rate than blue dye in both overall (87% vs 71%, respectively; p=0.005) and bilateral (65% vs 43%, respectively; p=0.002) detection, but similar SLN detection rates compared to technetium(99) in both overall (87% vs 88%, respectively; p=0.83) and bilateral (65% vs 71%, respectively; p=0.36) detection. In eight cases, the SLN was in the para-aortic area and in 14 cases in the pre-sacral, hypogastric vein, or parametrial area. In nine cases, the SLN was positive for metastasis, and in seven cases the SLN was the only positive node. One SLN was falsely negative. No complications or anaphylactic reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: Intra-operative SLN mapping using cervical injection is feasible in patients with endometrial cancer and yields adequate detection rates. It allows mapping of SLNs in areas (pre-sacral, hypogastric vein, parametrial) not routinely sampled. Given the poorer performance of blue dye, surgeons may omit its use if a combination of ICG and technetium(99) is used.
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: Maria B Schiavone; Oliver Zivanovic; Qin Zhou; Mario M Leitao; Douglas A Levine; Robert A Soslow; Kaled M Alektiar; Vicky Makker; Alexia Iasonos; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Andrea Papadia; Ignacio Zapardiel; Beatrice Bussi; Fabio Ghezzi; Marcello Ceccaroni; Elena De Ponti; Federica Elisei; Sara Imboden; Begoña Diaz de la Noval; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Giampaolo Di Martino; Javier De Santiago; Michael Mueller; Francesca Vecchione; Federica Dell'Orto; Alessandro Buda Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Natalia R Gómez-Hidalgo; Ling Chen; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 2.176
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