Literature DB >> 27453926

Performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk endometrial cancer.

Jessie Ehrisman1, Angeles Alvarez Secord2, Andrew Berchuck2, Paula S Lee2, Nicola Di Santo1, Micael Lopez-Acevedo3, Gloria Broadwater4, Fidel A Valea2, Laura J Havrilesky2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and performance of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping among women with high-risk endometrial cancers.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2015 with uterine cancer of grade 3 endometrioid, clear cell, serous or carcinosarcoma histology and who underwent SLN mapping prior to full pelvic lymph node dissection were included. Subjects underwent methylene blue or ICG injection for laparoscopic (N = 16) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic (N = 20) staging. Outcomes included SLN mapping rates, SLN and non-SLN positive rates, false negative SLN algorithm rate, and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SLN algorithm. Fisher's exact test was used to compare mapping and node positivity rates.
RESULTS: 9/36 (25%) patients with high-risk uterine cancer had at least one metastatic lymph node identified. Successful mapping occurred in 30/36 (83%) patients. SLN mapped to pelvic nodes bilaterally in 20 (56%), unilaterally in 9 (25%), and aortic nodes only in 1 (3%). Malignancy was identified in 14/95 (15%) of all sentinel nodes and 12/775 (1.5%) of all non-sentinel nodes (p < 0.001). The false negative rate of SLN mapping alone was 2/26 (7.7%); the NPV was 92.3%. When the SLN algorithm was applied retrospectively the false negative rate was 0/31 (0%); the NPV was 100%.
CONCLUSION: SLN mapping rates for high-risk cancers are slightly lower than in prior reports of lower risk cancers. The NPV of the SLN mapping alone is 92% and rises to 100% when the SLN algorithm is applied. Such results are acceptable and consistent with larger subsets of lower risk endometrial cancers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endometrial cancer; High-grade; High-risk; Sentinel lymph node algorithm; Sentinel lymph node mapping; Sentinel lymph node sampling

Year:  2016        PMID: 27453926      PMCID: PMC4941561          DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2016.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep        ISSN: 2352-5789


Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is typically treated surgically. Because of the adjuvant treatment implications, complete surgical staging including lymphadenectomy is recommended for high-risk ECs (Colombo et al., 2013). Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has the potential to provide information about lymph node (LN) metastasis while avoiding potential complications of extended lymph node dissection (LND) (May et al., 2010). Multicenter studies of detection rate, diagnostic accuracy, and impact of SLN biopsy in patients with low-risk EC suggest that SLN biopsy alone can accurately diagnose LN involvement (Raimond et al., 2014, Ballester et al., 2011). However, current data does not yet support substituting formal lymphadenectomy with SLN biopsy in high-risk EC cases (Ballester et al., 2011, Naoura et al., 2015). The aim of this study is to determine the rate and performance of SLN mapping among women with high-risk ECs and to report the predictive value of the procedure and the corresponding algorithm.

Methods

We identified 36 patients with high-risk histology EC (carcinosarcoma, papillary serous, clear cell, or grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma) who underwent SLN dissection followed by full pelvic LND at a single institution. Patients were retrospectively identified from 2 IRB-approved studies, neither of which mandated SLN biopsy. Hysterectomy type and decision to perform aortic lymphadenectomy were at the discretion of the surgeon. The SLN procedure was performed by injecting 4 mL of either methylene blue or indocyanine green (ICG) dye into the cervix at 3 and 9 o'clock both superficially and deep during examination under anesthesia. Blue dye 1% (10 mg/mL) was used in all conventional laparoscopic cases; ICG dye was used in all robotic-assisted cases. Near infrared fluorescence imaging with the DaVinci robotic system was utilized to identify green SLNs. The performance characteristics of SLN mapping alone were retrospectively evaluated and compared to characteristics yielded by applying the algorithm for SLN mapping of EC developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). The SLN algorithm requires (Colombo et al., 2013) peritoneal and serosal evaluation and washings; (May et al., 2010) retroperitoneal evaluation including excision of all mapped SLNs and removal of all suspicious nodes regardless of mapping; and (Raimond et al., 2014) if there is no mapping within a hemipelvis, a side-specific pelvic, common iliac, and interiliac LND should be performed.(Barlin et al., 2012) Our institutional SLN sectioning protocol requires that each node have 7 levels cut, of which levels 1, 4, and 7 are stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). If any of the H&E slides reveal suspicious, but non-diagnostic pathology, adjacent levels are stained for cytokeratin and reviewed for evidence of metastasis. A lymph node containing metastases of any size, including isolated tumor cells and micrometastases, is considered positive. The central tendencies of BMI were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Differences in proportions were compared using Fisher's exact test. The exact binomial method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals for rates. Analyses were conducted using SAS v9.3 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). False negative rate was defined as the number of patients with negative SLNs but metastatic non-SLNs divided by all patients with negative SLN; this metric was calculated exclusively for pelvic node basins and not for metastases to the aortic region.

Results

Between August 2012 and June 2015, 36 patients with high-risk uterine cancers underwent SLN mapping prior to full pelvic LND. Median age was 66.6 years; median BMI was 32.3 kg/m2 (Table 1). At least one SLN was identified in 30/36 (83%) patients: 20 (56%) had bilateral pelvic SLN mapping, 9 (25%) unilateral pelvic SLN mapping, and 1 (3%) aortic SLN mapping. Rates of bilateral mapping by type of procedure were 7/16 (44%) for the laparoscopic approach and 13/20 (65%) for the robotic approach (p = 0.32; Table 2). Pelvic LNs were collected in 36/36 (100%) subjects and aortic nodes in 25/36 (69%) subjects.
Table 1

Patient characteristics.

ParameterMedianRange
Age (years)66.627.5–81.5
BMI (kg/m2)32.319.8–46.3



Table 2

Mapping rates.

Patient level mapping n = 36Successful mapping%
Bilateral mapping2056
Unilateral mapping925
Para-aortic mapping13



Surgical procedure
 Laparoscopic (n = 16)1275
 Robotically assisted (n = 20)1890
p = 0.37



From the 36 cases included in this cohort, 95 SLNs and 775 non-SLNs were removed. The median number of SLNs removed per case was 2 (range, 0–7) and the median number of non-SLNs (pelvic and aortic) removed per case was 22 (range, 4–40). Fourteen of 95 (15%) sentinel nodes and 12/775 (1.5%) non-sentinel nodes were malignant (p < 0.001, Table 3). Of the 14 SLNs containing metastatic disease, 2 (12%) were detected laparoscopically with methylene blue dye and 12 (86%), robot-assisted with ICG. Seven patients (19%) had 1 or more SLNs containing metastatic disease removed. 3/7 (43%) patients with metastatic SLNs also had positive non-sentinel nodes.
Table 3

Positivity rate by node type.

Type of nodeMalignant status%
Sentinel lymph nodes (n = 95)1415
Non-sentinel lymph nodes (n = 775)121.5
p < 0.001
The 6 patients for whom no SLNs were identified went on to full lymphadenectomy; none of the additional nodes evaluated were malignant. Barriers to SLN identification included extensive adhesive disease, fibroids, or morbid obesity that impeded visualization and mobility. The median BMI of patients who mapped was 31.1 kg/m2 compared to 34.9 kg/m2 for patients who did not map (p = 0.2). Nine of the 30 (30%) successfully mapped cases had metastatic disease to the SLNs, pelvic LNs, and/or aortic nodes. Metastases were limited to the SLNs in 4/9 cases, extended to both SLNs and non-sentinel nodes in 3/9 cases, and were observed only in non-sentinel nodes in 2/9 cases. These 2 cases were labeled as false-negatives, yielding a false-negative rate of 7.7% (95%CI, 0.1–25%). Concerning the two false-negative cases: In the first case there was a suspicious, 3 × 3 cm firm LN located directly adjacent to 3 left pelvic SLNs. This instance of extra-uterine disease was captured by the SLN algorithm under the guidance that all grossly enlarged nodes are removed regardless of mapping. In the second case, several low right aortic SLNs were identified, but no right pelvic SLN was identified. Full pelvic LND was performed (as recommended by the algorithm due to non-mapping in the hemipelvis); the microscopically positive malignant non-SLN was removed from the right obturator space. Twelve additional non-SLNs from this patient were negative for metastatic disease. Evaluation of the MSKCC SLN algorithm resulted in zero false-negative cases out of 32 cases with a negative algorithm result, yielding a false-negative rate of 0% (95%CI, 0–13%). The negative predictive value of SLN algorithm in our high-risk cohort was therefore 100% (95%CI, 86.7–100%).

Discussion

Systemic therapy is indicated for women with extra-pelvic disease, with therapeutic decisions directly influenced by the identification of nodal and distant metastasis. If lymph node status is unknown, there is a possibility that some patients may be over- or undertreated (Leitao & Barakat, 2011). In this single institution analysis of SLN mapping among subjects with histologic high-risk features, we report an NPV of 92% for mapping alone and 100% using the MSKCC algorithm. Prior literature on SLN mapping includes analyses of patient cohorts who underwent mapping without consideration to grade and histology (May et al., 2010, Raimond et al., 2014, Brucker et al., 2014). Our NPV rate is comparable to rates previously reported for early stage EC (Ballester et al., 2011). Our data suggest that the implementation of an EC surgical algorithm with SLN mapping and biopsy may be a successful method of identifying metastatic nodal disease in the majority of patients with high-risk uterine cancers. The overall rate of successful SLN mapping in this cohort was 83%, while the bilateral mapping rate was 56%. The overall mapping rate reported in the literature ranges widely from 45 to 100%, with techniques differing in injection site and depth as well as mapping medium and volume injected (Ballester et al., 2011, Abu-Rustum et al., 2009, Jewell et al., 2014, Frumovitz et al., 2007). Our detection rate is comparable to cohorts that underwent similar mapping protocols (Naoura et al., 2015, Jewell et al., 2014, Frumovitz et al., 2007). Overall mapping rates have significantly improved by using ICG instead of blue dye (Jewell et al., 2014, Plante et al., 2015). Our findings are consistent with this observation; the mapping rate of metastatic SLNs was 90% in the current study when using ICG compared to 75% using blue dye (p = 0.05). In the current series, the extent of paraaortic LND was at the discretion of the attending surgeon and was variable. Capturing instances of isolated paraaortic disease is a limitation to the exclusive use of SLN mapping in women with high-risk uterine cancers (Barlin et al., 2012, Boronow, 2008, Frumovitz et al., 2014). The false negative rate of sentinel aortic nodes to the para-aortic LNs could not be reported here due to the low incidence of successful sentinel aortic node mapping. However, our group is moving toward more robust paraaortic node dissection following identification of pelvic SLN alone in patients with high-risk histologies. It has been observed in several malignancies that in the presence of gross metastasis, mapping dyes may approach a diseased node without illuminating it (Tanner et al., 2015). This represents a fundamental limitation to SLN mapping alone for the identification of extra uterine disease in cases of high-risk histology. Applying the SLN mapping algorithm increases the likelihood of identifying metastatic disease in these patients. While the relatively small size of this cohort represents a major limitation to this study, the number of high-risk cases described here is comparable to the volumes reported in other single-institution reviews (Naoura et al., 2015). Similarly, the analyses conducted here were restricted to cases wherein SLN mapping was successful and complete lymphadenectomy was done, excluding cases where SLN mapping was performed but no further LND was conducted may represent selection bias. Other limitations include the use of two different surgical approaches and dye agents. However we feel that analysis of available data on SLN in this high-risk cohort will contribute to refinement of the predictive algorithm and further support its application during lymph node dissection. Ultimately, our results support the use of SLN procedure for women with high-risk histology EC.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Alvarez Secord reports grants from Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Eisai Morphotek, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Astellas Pharma Inc., Amgen, Endocyte, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc., and grants and/or personal fees from Genentech, Exelixis, Janssen, and Precision Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Ms. Broadwater reports grants from NIH during the conduct of the study. No other authors have conflicts to disclose.
  14 in total

1.  Advances in the management of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Mario M Leitao; Richard R Barakat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Endometrial cancer and lymph node surgery: the spins continue--a case for reason.

Authors:  Richard C Boronow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Authors:  N Colombo; E Preti; F Landoni; S Carinelli; A Colombo; C Marini; C Sessa
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  A case for caution in the pursuit of the sentinel node in women with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Michael Frumovitz; Robert C Coleman; Pamela T Soliman; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  The importance of applying a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer staging: beyond removal of blue nodes.

Authors:  Joyce N Barlin; Fady Khoury-Collado; Christine H Kim; Mario M Leitao; Dennis S Chi; Yukio Sonoda; Kaled Alektiar; Deborah F DeLair; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: a concept ready for clinical routine?

Authors:  Sara Y Brucker; F A Taran; D Wallwiener
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.344

7.  Detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel-node biopsy in early stage endometrial cancer: a prospective multicentre study (SENTI-ENDO).

Authors:  Marcos Ballester; Gil Dubernard; Fabrice Lécuru; Denis Heitz; Patrice Mathevet; Henri Marret; Denis Querleu; François Golfier; Eric Leblanc; Roman Rouzier; Emile Daraï
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Factors associated with successful bilateral sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Edward J Tanner; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Rebecca L Stone; Kimberly L Levinson; Kara C Long; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Detection of sentinel lymph nodes in minimally invasive surgery using indocyanine green and near-infrared fluorescence imaging for uterine and cervical malignancies.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Jewell; Juan Juan Huang; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner; Carol L Brown; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Douglas A Levine; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy on the therapeutic management of early-stage endometrial cancer: Results of a retrospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Emilie Raimond; Marcos Ballester; Delphine Hudry; Sofiane Bendifallah; Emile Daraï; Olivier Graesslin; Charles Coutant
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Surgical staging in endometrial cancer.

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

2.  Multicenter study comparing oncologic outcomes after lymph node assessment via a sentinel lymph node algorithm versus comprehensive pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with serous and clear cell endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Brooke A Schlappe; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Jennifer Ducie; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Gretchen E Glaser; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-11-24       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer: a New Standard of Care?

Authors:  Stephanie A Sullivan; Emma C Rossi
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2017-09-18

4.  Survival of Patients with Serous Uterine Carcinoma Undergoing Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping.

Authors:  Maria B Schiavone; Chiara Scelzo; Celeste Straight; Qin Zhou; Kaled M Alektiar; Vicky Makker; Robert A Soslow; Alexia Iasonos; Mario M Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  A Prospective Study of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping for Endometrial Cancer: Is It Effective in High-Risk Subtypes?

Authors:  Lei Ye; ShuangDi Li; Wen Lu; QiZhi He; YiRan Li; BiLan Li; XiaoJun Wang; Qin Yan; XiaoPing Wan
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-07-03

Review 6.  Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations.

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

7.  Retrospective validation of the laparoscopic ICG SLN mapping in patients with grade 3 endometrial cancer.

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

8.  Sentinel lymph node mapping in high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiang Ji; Xiuying Wang; Jiyong Jiang; Liyan Chen
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-12

9.  Paraaortic sentinel lymph node detection in intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer by transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer (TUMIR).

Authors:  Martina Aida Angeles; Federico Migliorelli; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Adela Saco; Jaume Ordi; Cristina Ros; Pere Fusté; Meritxell Munmany; Sílvia Escura; Núria Carreras; Nuria Sánchez-Izquierdo; Jaume Pahisa; Aureli Torné; Pilar Paredes; Marta Del Pino
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 4.401

10.  Rethinking the Current American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System for Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

Authors:  Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Samantha Thomas; Sanziana A Roman; Terry Hyslop; Julie A Sosa
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 14.766

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.