Gloria Salvo1, Pedro T Ramirez1, Charles F Levenback1, Mark F Munsell2, Elizabeth D Euscher3, Pamela T Soliman1, Michael Frumovitz4. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States. 3. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States. 4. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States. Electronic address: mfrumovitz@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy alone for staging of early-stage cervical cancer remains controversial. We aimed to determine the validity of this technique in women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed women with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent SLN mapping followed by complete pelvic lymphadenectomy as part of initial surgical management from August 1997 through October 2015. All modes of surgical approach were included. Lymphatic mapping was performed using blue dye, technetium-99m sulfur colloid (Tc-99), and/or indocyanine green (ICG). We determined SLN detection rates, sensitivity and negative predictive value. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients were included, and 35 (19%) had lymph node metastases. At least one SLN was identified in 170 patients (90%), and bilateral SLNs were identified in 117 patients (62%). The majority of SLNs (83%) were found in the pelvis. There was no difference in detection rates between mapping agents, surgical approach, patients with and without prior conization or between patients with tumors <2cm and ≥2cm. The detection rate for bilateral SLNs was significantly lower in women with body mass index (BMI)>30kg/m2 than in women with lower BMI (p=0.03). Metastatic disease in sentinel nodes was detected by H&E staining in 78% of cases and required ultrastaging/immunohistochemistry in 22% of cases. Only one patient had a false-negative result, yielding a sensitivity of 96.4% (95% CI 79.8%-99.8%) and negative predictive value of 99.3% (95% CI 95.6%-100%). The false-negative rate was 3.6%. CONCLUSIONS: In these women with early-stage cervical cancer, SLN biopsy had very high sensitivity and negative predictive value. We believe it is time to change the standard of care for women with early-stage cervical cancer to SLN biopsy only.
OBJECTIVE: The role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy alone for staging of early-stage cervical cancer remains controversial. We aimed to determine the validity of this technique in women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed women with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent SLN mapping followed by complete pelvic lymphadenectomy as part of initial surgical management from August 1997 through October 2015. All modes of surgical approach were included. Lymphatic mapping was performed using blue dye, technetium-99m sulfur colloid (Tc-99), and/or indocyanine green (ICG). We determined SLN detection rates, sensitivity and negative predictive value. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients were included, and 35 (19%) had lymph node metastases. At least one SLN was identified in 170 patients (90%), and bilateral SLNs were identified in 117 patients (62%). The majority of SLNs (83%) were found in the pelvis. There was no difference in detection rates between mapping agents, surgical approach, patients with and without prior conization or between patients with tumors <2cm and ≥2cm. The detection rate for bilateral SLNs was significantly lower in women with body mass index (BMI)>30kg/m2 than in women with lower BMI (p=0.03). Metastatic disease in sentinel nodes was detected by H&E staining in 78% of cases and required ultrastaging/immunohistochemistry in 22% of cases. Only one patient had a false-negative result, yielding a sensitivity of 96.4% (95% CI 79.8%-99.8%) and negative predictive value of 99.3% (95% CI 95.6%-100%). The false-negative rate was 3.6%. CONCLUSIONS: In these women with early-stage cervical cancer, SLN biopsy had very high sensitivity and negative predictive value. We believe it is time to change the standard of care for women with early-stage cervical cancer to SLN biopsy only.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Beatrice Cormier; John P Diaz; Karin Shih; Rachael M Sampson; Yukio Sonoda; Kay J Park; Khaled Alektiar; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 5.482
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
Authors: Elizabeth D Euscher; Anais Malpica; Edward Neely Atkinson; Charles F Levenback; Michael Frumovitz; Michael T Deavers Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Ricardo dos Reis; Charlotte C Sun; Michael R Milam; Michael W Bevers; Jubilee Brown; Brian M Slomovitz; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Roberto Angioli; Arthur E Bailey; Vance Broach; Alessandro Buda; Michelle R Coriddi; Joseph H Dayan; Michael Frumovitz; Yong Man Kim; Rainer Kimmig; Mario M Leitao; Mustafa Zelal Muallem; Matt McKittrick; Babak Mehrara; Roberto Montera; Lea A Moukarzel; Raj Naik; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Marie Plante; Francesco Plotti; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: F J Backes; A S Felix; M Plante; J Grégoire; S A Sullivan; E C Rossi; E J Tanner; K I Stewart; P T Soliman; R W Holloway; N R Abu-Rustum; M M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Sandra Russo; Joan L Walker; Jay W Carlson; Jeanne Carter; Leigh C Ward; Allan Covens; Edward J Tanner; Jane M Armer; Sheila Ridner; Sandi Hayes; Alphonse G Taghian; Cheryl Brunelle; Micael Lopez-Acevedo; Brittany A Davidson; Mark V Schaverien; Sharad A Ghamande; Michael Bernas; Andrea L Cheville; Kathleen J Yost; Kathryn Schmitz; Barbara Coyle; Jeannette Zucker; Danielle Enserro; Stephanie Pugh; Electra D Paskett; Leslie Ford; Worta McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.482