Andrea Papadia1, Maria Luisa Gasparri2,3,4, Anda P Radan2, Chantal A L Stämpfli2, Tilman T Rau5, Michael D Mueller2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Berne and University of Berne, Effingerstrasse 102, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. andrea.papadia@insel.ch. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Berne and University of Berne, Effingerstrasse 102, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Dipartimento Assistenziale Integrato Ostetricia e Ginecologia, Perinatologia e Puericultura, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 4. Surgical and Medical Department of Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 5. Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, 3008, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV) and false-negative (FN) rate of the near infrared (NIR) indocyanine green (ICG) sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in patients with poorly differentiated endometrial cancer who have undergone a full pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy after SLN mapping. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing a laparoscopic NIR-ICG SLN mapping followed by a systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Inclusion criteria were a grade 3 endometrial cancer or a high-risk histology (papillary serous, clear cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma) and a completion pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy to the renal vessels after SLN mapping. Overall and bilateral detection rates, sensitivity, NPV, and FN rates were calculated. RESULTS: From December 2012 until January 2017, 42 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Overall and bilateral detection rates were 100 and 90.5%, respectively. Overall, 23.8% of the patients had lymph node metastases. In one patient, despite negative bilateral pelvic SLNs, a metastatic non-SLN-isolated para-aortic metastasis was detected. This NSLN was clinically suspicious and sent to frozen section analysis during the surgery. FN rate, sensitivity, and NPV were 10, 90, and 97.1%, respectively. For the SLN mapping algorithm, FN rate, sensitivity, and NPV were 0, 100, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic NIR-ICG SLN mapping in high-risk endometrial cancer patients has acceptable sensitivity, FN rate, and NPV.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV) and false-negative (FN) rate of the near infrared (NIR) indocyanine green (ICG) sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in patients with poorly differentiated endometrial cancer who have undergone a full pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy after SLN mapping. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing a laparoscopic NIR-ICG SLN mapping followed by a systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Inclusion criteria were a grade 3 endometrial cancer or a high-risk histology (papillary serous, clear cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma) and a completion pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy to the renal vessels after SLN mapping. Overall and bilateral detection rates, sensitivity, NPV, and FN rates were calculated. RESULTS: From December 2012 until January 2017, 42 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Overall and bilateral detection rates were 100 and 90.5%, respectively. Overall, 23.8% of the patients had lymph node metastases. In one patient, despite negative bilateral pelvic SLNs, a metastatic non-SLN-isolated para-aortic metastasis was detected. This NSLN was clinically suspicious and sent to frozen section analysis during the surgery. FN rate, sensitivity, and NPV were 10, 90, and 97.1%, respectively. For the SLN mapping algorithm, FN rate, sensitivity, and NPV were 0, 100, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic NIR-ICG SLN mapping in high-risk endometrial cancerpatients has acceptable sensitivity, FN rate, and NPV.
Authors: Ilary Ruscito; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Elena Ioana Braicu; Filippo Bellati; Luigi Raio; Jalid Sehouli; Michael D Mueller; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Andrea Papadia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sanjeev Kumar; Fabiola Medeiros; Sean C Dowdy; Gary L Keeney; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Karl C Podratz; William A Cliby; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joel Laufer; Santiago Scasso; Andrea Papadia; Claudio Sosa; Federico Cirillo; Francesco Raspagliesi Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 3.561
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: Abdulrahman K Sinno; Elizabeth Peijnenburg; Amanda N Fader; Sarah M Temkin; Rebecca Stone; Kimberly Levinson; Tricia Murdock; Edward J Tanner Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Sara Imboden; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Franziska Siegenthaler; Anja Fink; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 4.553
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: 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: Virginia García Pineda; Ignacio Zapardiel; Myriam Gracia; Jaime Siegrist; María Dolores Diestro; María Alonso; Alicia Hernández Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 6.244