Beatrice Cormier1, Alexandre T Rozenholc2, Walter Gotlieb3, Marie Plante4, Christopher Giede5. 1. Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: beatrice.cormier@umontreal.ca. 2. Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Gynecologic Oncology Division, L'Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. 5. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Saskatoon, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure could be an attractive solution to the debate on lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer; however challenges to interpreting the literature include marked heterogeneity across studies, a wide variety of injection techniques and a lack of uniformly accepted definitions for important outcomes. We aim to critically appraise the published literature and streamline terminology and methodology for future studies in this field. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search and included all original research of endometrial cancer patients having undergone SLN procedure with an n>30. Data collected included injection technique, unilateral, bilateral, and para-aortic detection rates, and ultrastaging results. When different definitions were used for reporting outcomes, we recalculated the original study results according to our proposed definitions. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. Injection sites were categorized into cervical versus corporeal. Overall detection rates ranged from 60 to 100%; studies with n>100 all had overall detection rates of >80%. Bilateral detection rates were higher with a combination of two injection agents. Para-aortic mapping was most frequent after corporeal injection techniques (39%), and was higher after deep vs. standard cervical injection (17% vs. 2%). The proportion of metastatic lymph nodes diagnosed through ultrastaging was high (around 40%) and ultrastaging of SLN upstaged approximately 5% of patients. Retrospectively applying a surgical algorithm revealed a sensitivity of 95%, a negative predictive value of 99%, and a false negative rate of 5% (with only 9 false negative cases remaining in total). CONCLUSION: Results of SLN research for endometrial cancer are promising. We believe that in future studies, uniform reporting is needed to improve our understanding of the safety and feasibility of SLN in EC. We propose 2 strategies: a checklist of elements to include in future reports and the standardization of key definitions.
OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure could be an attractive solution to the debate on lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer; however challenges to interpreting the literature include marked heterogeneity across studies, a wide variety of injection techniques and a lack of uniformly accepted definitions for important outcomes. We aim to critically appraise the published literature and streamline terminology and methodology for future studies in this field. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search and included all original research of endometrial cancerpatients having undergone SLN procedure with an n>30. Data collected included injection technique, unilateral, bilateral, and para-aortic detection rates, and ultrastaging results. When different definitions were used for reporting outcomes, we recalculated the original study results according to our proposed definitions. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. Injection sites were categorized into cervical versus corporeal. Overall detection rates ranged from 60 to 100%; studies with n>100 all had overall detection rates of >80%. Bilateral detection rates were higher with a combination of two injection agents. Para-aortic mapping was most frequent after corporeal injection techniques (39%), and was higher after deep vs. standard cervical injection (17% vs. 2%). The proportion of metastatic lymph nodes diagnosed through ultrastaging was high (around 40%) and ultrastaging of SLN upstaged approximately 5% of patients. Retrospectively applying a surgical algorithm revealed a sensitivity of 95%, a negative predictive value of 99%, and a false negative rate of 5% (with only 9 false negative cases remaining in total). CONCLUSION: Results of SLN research for endometrial cancer are promising. We believe that in future studies, uniform reporting is needed to improve our understanding of the safety and feasibility of SLN in EC. We propose 2 strategies: a checklist of elements to include in future reports and the standardization of key definitions.
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; 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: Jvan Casarin; Francesco Multinu; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; David Cibula; William A Cliby; Fabio Ghezzi; Mario Leitao; Ikuo Konishi; Joo-Hyun Nam; Denis Querleu; Pamela T Soliman; Kathleen J Yost; Amy L Weaver; Andrea Mariani; Gretchen E Glaser Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.437