D Cibula1, M Zikan2, J Slama2, D Fischerova2, R Kocian2, A Germanova2, A Burgetova3, L Dusek4, P Dundr5, M Gregova5, K Nemejcova5. 1. Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: d_cibula@yahoo.com. 2. Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Institute for Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 5. Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A high sensitivity of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) for pelvic lymph node (LN) staging has been repeatedly shown in patients with cervical cancer. However, since only SLN are evaluated by pathologic ultrastaging, the risk of small metastases, including small macrometastases (MAC) and micrometastases (MIC), in non-SLN is unknown. This can be a critical limitation for the oncological safety of abandoning a pelvic lymphadenectomy. METHODS: The patients selected for the study had cervical cancer and were at high risk for LN positivity (stage IB-IIA, biggest diameter≥3cm). The patients had no enlarged or suspicious LN on pre-operative imaging; SLNs were detected bilaterally and were negative on intra-operative pathologic evaluation. All SLNs and all other pelvic LNs were examined using an ultrastaging protocol and processed completely in intervals of 150μm. RESULTS: In all, 17 patients were enrolled into the study. The mean number of removed pelvic LNs was 30. A total of 573 pelvic LNs were examined through ultrastaging protocol (5762 slides). Metastatic involvement was detected in SLNs of 8 patients (1× MAC; 4× MIC; 3× ITC) and in non-SLNs in 2 patients (2× MIC). In both cases with positive pelvic non-SLNs, there were found MIC in ipsilateral SLNs. No metastasis in pelvic non-SLNs was found by pathologic ultrastaging in any of the patients with negative SLN Side-specific sensitivity was 100% for MAC and MIC. There was one case of ITC detected in non-SLN, negative ipsilateral SLN, but MIC in SLN on the other pelvic side. CONCLUSIONS: After processing all pelvic LNs by pathologic ultrastaging, there were found no false-negative cases of positive non-SLN (MAC or MIC) and negative SLN. SLN ultrastaging reached 100% sensitivity for the presence of both MAC and MIC in pelvic LNs.
OBJECTIVE: A high sensitivity of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) for pelvic lymph node (LN) staging has been repeatedly shown in patients with cervical cancer. However, since only SLN are evaluated by pathologic ultrastaging, the risk of small metastases, including small macrometastases (MAC) and micrometastases (MIC), in non-SLN is unknown. This can be a critical limitation for the oncological safety of abandoning a pelvic lymphadenectomy. METHODS: The patients selected for the study had cervical cancer and were at high risk for LN positivity (stage IB-IIA, biggest diameter≥3cm). The patients had no enlarged or suspicious LN on pre-operative imaging; SLNs were detected bilaterally and were negative on intra-operative pathologic evaluation. All SLNs and all other pelvic LNs were examined using an ultrastaging protocol and processed completely in intervals of 150μm. RESULTS: In all, 17 patients were enrolled into the study. The mean number of removed pelvic LNs was 30. A total of 573 pelvic LNs were examined through ultrastaging protocol (5762 slides). Metastatic involvement was detected in SLNs of 8 patients (1× MAC; 4× MIC; 3× ITC) and in non-SLNs in 2 patients (2× MIC). In both cases with positive pelvic non-SLNs, there were found MIC in ipsilateral SLNs. No metastasis in pelvic non-SLNs was found by pathologic ultrastaging in any of the patients with negative SLN Side-specific sensitivity was 100% for MAC and MIC. There was one case of ITC detected in non-SLN, negative ipsilateral SLN, but MIC in SLN on the other pelvic side. CONCLUSIONS: After processing all pelvic LNs by pathologic ultrastaging, there were found no false-negative cases of positive non-SLN (MAC or MIC) and negative SLN. SLN ultrastaging reached 100% sensitivity for the presence of both MAC and MIC in pelvic LNs.
Authors: Alessandro Buda; Jvan Casarin; Michael Mueller; Francesco Fanfani; Ignacio Zapardiel; Liliana Mereu; Andrea Puppo; Elena De Ponti; Marco Adorni; Debora Ferrari; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Fabio Ghezzi; Giovanni Scambia; Andrea Papadia Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Carlo Ronsini; Maria Cristina Solazzo; Nicolò Bizzarri; Domenico Ambrosio; Marco La Verde; Marco Torella; Raffaela Maria Carotenuto; Luigi Cobellis; Nicola Colacurci; Pasquale De Franciscis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Yan Yan Yu; Rui Zhang; Rui Tong Dong; Qi Yun Hu; Tao Yu; Fan Liu; Ya Hong Luo; Yue Dong Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Shadi Younes; Andreas M Kaufmann; Norman Häfner; Katrin Beer; Lars Jansen; Juliane Sanft; Gita Mall; Susan Koops; Matthias Dürst; Achim Schneider Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-03-14