Stephanie Cham1, Ling Chen, William M Burke, June Y Hou, Ana I Tergas, Jim C Hu, Cande V Ananth, Alfred I Neugut, Dawn L Hershman, Jason D Wright. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Medicine and the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the use and predictors of sentinel node biopsy in women with vulvar cancer. METHODS: The Perspective database, an all-payer database that collects data from more than 500 hospitals, was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of women with vulvar cancer who underwent vulvectomy and lymph node assessment from 2006 to 2015. Multivariable models were used to determine factors associated with sentinel node biopsy. Length of stay and cost were compared between women who underwent sentinel node biopsy and lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: Among 2,273 women, sentinel node biopsy was utilized in 618 (27.2%) and 1,655 (72.8%) underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy. Performance of sentinel node biopsy increased from 17.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0-22.0%) in 2006 to 39.1% (95% CI 27.1-51.0%) in 2015. In a multivariable model, women treated more recently were more likely to have undergone sentinel node biopsy, whereas women with more comorbidities and those treated at rural hospitals were less likely to have undergone the procedure. The median length of stay was shorter for those undergoing sentinel node biopsy (median 2 days, interquartile range 1-3) compared with women who underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (median 3 days, interquartile range 2-4). The cost of sentinel node biopsy was $7,599 (interquartile range $5,739-9,922) compared with $8,095 (interquartile range $5,917-11,281) for lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSION: The use of sentinel node biopsy for vulvar cancer has more than doubled since 2006. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with a shorter hospital stay and decreased cost compared with inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the use and predictors of sentinel node biopsy in women with vulvar cancer. METHODS: The Perspective database, an all-payer database that collects data from more than 500 hospitals, was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of women with vulvar cancer who underwent vulvectomy and lymph node assessment from 2006 to 2015. Multivariable models were used to determine factors associated with sentinel node biopsy. Length of stay and cost were compared between women who underwent sentinel node biopsy and lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: Among 2,273 women, sentinel node biopsy was utilized in 618 (27.2%) and 1,655 (72.8%) underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy. Performance of sentinel node biopsy increased from 17.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0-22.0%) in 2006 to 39.1% (95% CI 27.1-51.0%) in 2015. In a multivariable model, women treated more recently were more likely to have undergone sentinel node biopsy, whereas women with more comorbidities and those treated at rural hospitals were less likely to have undergone the procedure. The median length of stay was shorter for those undergoing sentinel node biopsy (median 2 days, interquartile range 1-3) compared with women who underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (median 3 days, interquartile range 2-4). The cost of sentinel node biopsy was $7,599 (interquartile range $5,739-9,922) compared with $8,095 (interquartile range $5,917-11,281) for lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSION: The use of sentinel node biopsy for vulvar cancer has more than doubled since 2006. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with a shorter hospital stay and decreased cost compared with inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy.
Authors: Michael B Rothberg; Penelope S Pekow; Maureen Lahti; Oren Brody; Daniel J Skiest; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian M Slomovitz; Robert L Coleman; Maaike H M Oonk; Ate van der Zee; Charles Levenback Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria B Schiavone; Thomas J Herzog; Cande V Ananth; Elizabeth T Wilde; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Theresa A Lawrie; Amit Patel; Pierre P L Martin-Hirsch; Andrew Bryant; Nithya D G Ratnavelu; Raj Naik; Angela Ralte Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-06-27
Authors: Girja S Shukla; Walter C Olson; Stephanie C Pero; Yu-Jing Sun; Chelsea L Carman; Craig L Slingluff; David N Krag Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 5.531