Barbara Geppert1, Céline Lönnerfors1, Michele Bollino1, Jan Persson2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: jan.persson@med.lu.se.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of lymphatic complications in women with endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy versus a full pelvic and infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy, and to examine the overall feasibility and safety of the former. METHODS: A prospective study of 188 patients with endometrial cancer planned for robotic surgery. Indocyanine green was used to identify the sentinel lymph nodes. In low-risk patients the lymphadenectomy was restricted to removal of sentinel lymph nodes whereas in high-risk patients also a full lymphadenectomy was performed. The impact of the extent of the lymphadenectomy on the rate of complications was evaluated. RESULTS: The bilateral detection rate of sentinel lymph nodes was 96% after cervical tracer injection. No intraoperative complication was associated with the sentinel lymph node biopsy per se. Compared with hysterectomy alone, the additional average operative time for removal of sentinel lymph nodes was 33min whereas 91min were saved compared with a full pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone resulted in a lower incidence of leg lymphedema than infrarenal paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy (1.3% vs 18.1%, p=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The high feasibility, the absence of intraoperative complications and the low risk of lymphatic complications supports implementing detection of sentinel lymph nodes in low-risk endometrial cancer patients. Given that available preliminary data on sensitivity and false negative rates in high-risk patients are confirmed in further studies, we also believe that the reduction in lymphatic complications and operative time strongly motivates the sentinel lymph node concept in high-risk endometrial cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of lymphatic complications in women with endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy versus a full pelvic and infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy, and to examine the overall feasibility and safety of the former. METHODS: A prospective study of 188 patients with endometrial cancer planned for robotic surgery. Indocyanine green was used to identify the sentinel lymph nodes. In low-risk patients the lymphadenectomy was restricted to removal of sentinel lymph nodes whereas in high-risk patients also a full lymphadenectomy was performed. The impact of the extent of the lymphadenectomy on the rate of complications was evaluated. RESULTS: The bilateral detection rate of sentinel lymph nodes was 96% after cervical tracer injection. No intraoperative complication was associated with the sentinel lymph node biopsy per se. Compared with hysterectomy alone, the additional average operative time for removal of sentinel lymph nodes was 33min whereas 91min were saved compared with a full pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone resulted in a lower incidence of leg lymphedema than infrarenal paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy (1.3% vs 18.1%, p=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The high feasibility, the absence of intraoperative complications and the low risk of lymphatic complications supports implementing detection of sentinel lymph nodes in low-risk endometrial cancerpatients. Given that available preliminary data on sensitivity and false negative rates in high-risk patients are confirmed in further studies, we also believe that the reduction in lymphatic complications and operative time strongly motivates the sentinel lymph node concept in high-risk endometrial cancer.
Authors: Brooke A Schlappe; Amy L Weaver; Jennifer A Ducie; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Gretchen E Glaser; Robert A Soslow; Kaled M Alektiar; Vicky Makker; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Kristine E Fasmer; Ankush Gulati; Julie A Dybvik; Kari S Wagner-Larsen; Njål Lura; Øyvind Salvesen; David Forsse; Jone Trovik; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Camilla Krakstad; Ingfrid S Haldorsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mario M Leitao; Qin C Zhou; Natalia R Gomez-Hidalgo; Alexia Iasonos; Ray Baser; Marissa Mezzancello; Kaity Chang; Jae Ward; Dennis S Chi; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Carol L Brown; Jennifer J Mueller; Ginger J Gardner; Elizabeth L Jewell; Vance Broach; Oliver Zivanovic; Sean C Dowdy; Andrea Mariani; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 5.482