Edward J Tanner1, Abdulrahman K Sinno2, Rebecca L Stone2, Kimberly L Levinson2, Kara C Long2, Amanda N Fader2. 1. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: etanner4@jhmi.edu. 2. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As our understanding of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping for endometrial cancer (EC) evolves, tailoring the technique to individual patients at high risk for failed mapping may result in a higher rate of successful bilateral mapping (SBM). The study objective is to identify patient, tumor, and surgeon factors associated with successful SBM in patients with EC and complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH). METHODS: From September 2012 to November 2014, women with EC or CAH underwent SLN mapping via cervical injection followed by robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RA-TLH) at a tertiary care academic center. Completion lymphadenectomy and ultrastaging were performed according to an institutional protocol. Patient demographics, tumor and surgeon/intraoperative variables were prospectively collected and analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed evaluating factors known or hypothesized to impact the rate of successful lymphatic mapping. RESULTS: RA-TLH and SLN mapping was performed in 111 women; 93 had EC and 18 had CAH. Eighty women had low grade and 31 had high grade disease. Overall, at least one SLN was identified in 85.6% of patients with SBM in 62.2% of patients. Dye choice (indocyanine green versus isosulfan blue), odds ratio (OR: 4.5), body mass index (OR: 0.95), and clinically enlarged lymph nodes (OR: 0.24) were associated with SBM rate on multivariate analyses. The use of indocyanine green dye was particularly beneficial in patients with a body mass index greater than 30. CONCLUSION: Injection dye, BMI, and clinically enlarged lymph nodes are important considerations when performing sentinel lymph node mapping for EC.
OBJECTIVE: As our understanding of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping for endometrial cancer (EC) evolves, tailoring the technique to individual patients at high risk for failed mapping may result in a higher rate of successful bilateral mapping (SBM). The study objective is to identify patient, tumor, and surgeon factors associated with successful SBM in patients with EC and complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH). METHODS: From September 2012 to November 2014, women with EC or CAH underwent SLN mapping via cervical injection followed by robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RA-TLH) at a tertiary care academic center. Completion lymphadenectomy and ultrastaging were performed according to an institutional protocol. Patient demographics, tumor and surgeon/intraoperative variables were prospectively collected and analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed evaluating factors known or hypothesized to impact the rate of successful lymphatic mapping. RESULTS: RA-TLH and SLN mapping was performed in 111 women; 93 had EC and 18 had CAH. Eighty women had low grade and 31 had high grade disease. Overall, at least one SLN was identified in 85.6% of patients with SBM in 62.2% of patients. Dye choice (indocyanine green versus isosulfan blue), odds ratio (OR: 4.5), body mass index (OR: 0.95), and clinically enlarged lymph nodes (OR: 0.24) were associated with SBM rate on multivariate analyses. The use of indocyanine green dye was particularly beneficial in patients with a body mass index greater than 30. CONCLUSION: Injection dye, BMI, and clinically enlarged lymph nodes are important considerations when performing sentinel lymph node mapping for EC.
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: Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback; Mark F Munsell; Elizabeth D Euscher; Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Monica Hagan Vetter; Blair Smith; Jason Benedict; Erinn M Hade; Kristin Bixel; Larry J Copeland; David E Cohn; Jeffrey M Fowler; David O'Malley; Ritu Salani; Floor J Backes Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Franziska Siegenthaler; Sara Imboden; Stefan Mohr; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.553
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
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: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Anda P Radan; Chantal A L Stämpfli; Tilman T Rau; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 4.553