Abdulrahman K Sinno1, Elizabeth Peijnenburg1, Amanda N Fader1, Sarah M Temkin1, Rebecca Stone1, Kimberly Levinson1, Tricia Murdock2, Edward J Tanner3. 1. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: etanner4@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the utility of three lymph node (LN) assessment strategies to identify lymphatic metastases while minimizing complete lymphadenectomy rates in women with low-grade endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using our institutional standard protocol (SP), patients with complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH) or grade 1/2 EC underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping, hysterectomy, and intraoperative frozen section (FS). Lymphadenectomy was performed if high-risk uterine features were identified on FS. Utilizing SP data, two alternative strategies were applied: a Universal FS Strategy (UFS), omitting SLN mapping and performing lymphadenectomy based on FS results, and a SLN-Restrictive FS Strategy (SLN-RFS) in which FS and lymphadenectomy are performed only if bilateral SLN mapping fails. RESULTS: Of 114 patients managed on the SP, SLNs were identified in 86%, with lymphatic metastases detected in eight patients. Six patients recurred after a median follow up of 15months. Most (83%) developed in those who had a negative systematic lymphadenectomy (n=4; mean LNs: 18) or no lymphadenectomy indication. When applying the alternative lymphatic assessment strategies, the SLN-RFS approach would theoretically result in lower lymphadenectomy rates compared to both the SP and the alternative UFS strategies (9.2% versus 36.8% and 36.8%, respectively; p=0.004), without a reduction in detection of LN metastases (8/8 versus 8/8 and 5/8, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this modeling analysis, an operative strategy omitting universal frozen section and restricting its use to cases with failed SLN mapping may result in lower lymphadenectomy rates and reduce the risk of overtreatment without compromising oncologic outcome for patients with EC.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the utility of three lymph node (LN) assessment strategies to identify lymphatic metastases while minimizing complete lymphadenectomy rates in women with low-grade endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using our institutional standard protocol (SP), patients with complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH) or grade 1/2 EC underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping, hysterectomy, and intraoperative frozen section (FS). Lymphadenectomy was performed if high-risk uterine features were identified on FS. Utilizing SP data, two alternative strategies were applied: a Universal FS Strategy (UFS), omitting SLN mapping and performing lymphadenectomy based on FS results, and a SLN-Restrictive FS Strategy (SLN-RFS) in which FS and lymphadenectomy are performed only if bilateral SLN mapping fails. RESULTS: Of 114 patients managed on the SP, SLNs were identified in 86%, with lymphatic metastases detected in eight patients. Six patients recurred after a median follow up of 15months. Most (83%) developed in those who had a negative systematic lymphadenectomy (n=4; mean LNs: 18) or no lymphadenectomy indication. When applying the alternative lymphatic assessment strategies, the SLN-RFS approach would theoretically result in lower lymphadenectomy rates compared to both the SP and the alternative UFS strategies (9.2% versus 36.8% and 36.8%, respectively; p=0.004), without a reduction in detection of LN metastases (8/8 versus 8/8 and 5/8, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this modeling analysis, an operative strategy omitting universal frozen section and restricting its use to cases with failed SLN mapping may result in lower lymphadenectomy rates and reduce the risk of overtreatment without compromising oncologic outcome for patients with 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: 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: Katherine I Stewart; Jarrod S Eska; Ross F Harrison; Rudy Suidan; Ann Abraham; Gary B Chisholm; Larissa A Meyer; Shannon N Westin; Nicole D Fleming; Michael Frumovitz; Thomas A Aloia; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.437
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: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064
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