Nicolò Bizzarri1, Pedone Anchora Luigi1, Gabriella Ferrandina1,2, Gian Franco Zannoni2,3, Maria Vittoria Carbone1, Camilla Fedele1, Elena Teodorico1, Valerio Gallotta1, Salvatore Gueli Alletti1, Vito Chiantera4, Anna Fagotti1,2, Giovanni Scambia5,6, Francesco Fanfani1,2. 1. UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. 2. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. 3. Unità di Gineco-Patologia e Patologia Mammaria, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS Ospedali Civico di Cristina Benfratelli, University of Palermo, Piazza Nicola Leotta 4/A, 90127, Palermo, Italy. 5. UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. giovanni.scambia@policlinicogemelli.it. 6. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. giovanni.scambia@policlinicogemelli.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the rate of bilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with indocyanine green (ICG), to evaluate the sensitivity and the negative predictive value of cervical cancer patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy; to compare open versus minimally invasive SLN biopsy performance and to assess factors related to no/unilateral SLN mapping. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA1 with lymph-vascular space involvement to IIB and IIIC1p cervical carcinoma who underwent SLN mapping with ICG followed by systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy between 05/2017 and 06/2020. Patients were divided according to surgical approach for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven (31.8%) underwent open and 58 (68.2%) underwent minimally invasive SLN mapping. No difference in any SLN mapping (laparotomy 92.6% and minimally invasive 91.4%) or in SLN bilateral detection (laparotomy 72.0% and minimally invasive 84.9%) (p = 0.850 and p = 0.222, respectively), in median number of SLNs mapped and retrieved (2 in both groups, p = 0.165) and in site of SLN mapping per hemi-pelvis (right side, p = 0273 and left side, p = 0.618) was evident between open and minimally invasive approach. Per-patient sensitivity of SLN biopsy in laparotomy was 83.3% (95% CI 35.9-99.6%) and the negative predictive value was 95.0% (95% CI 76.0-99.1%). No difference in per-patient sensitivity was noted between two approaches (p = 0.300). None of the analyzed variables was associated with no/unilateral SLN mapping. CONCLUSION: The use of ICG to detect SLN in cervical cancer treated with open surgery allows a bilateral detection, sensitivity and negative predictive value comparable to minimally invasive surgery with potential advantages of ICG compared to other tracers.
PURPOSE: To assess the rate of bilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with indocyanine green (ICG), to evaluate the sensitivity and the negative predictive value of cervical cancerpatients undergoing open radical hysterectomy; to compare open versus minimally invasive SLN biopsy performance and to assess factors related to no/unilateral SLN mapping. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA1 with lymph-vascular space involvement to IIB and IIIC1p cervical carcinoma who underwent SLN mapping with ICG followed by systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy between 05/2017 and 06/2020. Patients were divided according to surgical approach for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven (31.8%) underwent open and 58 (68.2%) underwent minimally invasive SLN mapping. No difference in any SLN mapping (laparotomy 92.6% and minimally invasive 91.4%) or in SLN bilateral detection (laparotomy 72.0% and minimally invasive 84.9%) (p = 0.850 and p = 0.222, respectively), in median number of SLNs mapped and retrieved (2 in both groups, p = 0.165) and in site of SLN mapping per hemi-pelvis (right side, p = 0273 and left side, p = 0.618) was evident between open and minimally invasive approach. Per-patient sensitivity of SLN biopsy in laparotomy was 83.3% (95% CI 35.9-99.6%) and the negative predictive value was 95.0% (95% CI 76.0-99.1%). No difference in per-patient sensitivity was noted between two approaches (p = 0.300). None of the analyzed variables was associated with no/unilateral SLN mapping. CONCLUSION: The use of ICG to detect SLN in cervical cancer treated with open surgery allows a bilateral detection, sensitivity and negative predictive value comparable to minimally invasive surgery with potential advantages of ICG compared to other tracers.
Authors: Helena Robova; Michael J Halaska; Marek Pluta; Petr Skapa; Jan Matecha; Jiri Lisy; Lukas Rob Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Roni Nitecki; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Kate J Krause; Ana I Tergas; Jason D Wright; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Merlijn Hutteman; Katja N Gaarenstroom; Alexander A W Peters; J Sven D Mieog; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Peter J K Kuppen; John V Frangioni; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Giampaolo Di Martino; Cinzia Crivellaro; Elena De Ponti; Beatrice Bussi; Andrea Papadia; Ignacio Zapardiel; Enrico Vizza; Federica Elisei; Maria Dolores Diestro; Luca Locatelli; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Paolo Di Lorenzo; Michael Mueller; Alessandro Buda Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Luigi Pedone Anchora; Luigi Calrlo Turco; Nicolò Bizzarri; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Andrea Lombisani; Vito Chiantera; Francesca De Felice; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Cosentino; Anna Fagotti; Gabriella Ferrandina; Giovanni Scambia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Wui-Jin Koh; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sarah Bean; Kristin Bradley; Susana M Campos; Kathleen R Cho; Hye Sook Chon; Christina Chu; Rachel Clark; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Shari Damast; Oliver Dorigo; Patricia J Eifel; Christine M Fisher; Peter Frederick; David K Gaffney; Ernest Han; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Andrea Mariani; David Mutch; Christa Nagel; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Amanda Nickles Fader; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; Todd Tillmanns; Stefanie Ueda; Emily Wyse; Catheryn M Yashar; Nicole R McMillian; Jillian L Scavone Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: M Bedyńska; G Szewczyk; T Klepacka; K Sachadel; T Maciejewski; D Szukiewicz; A Fijałkowska Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Marc Brisson; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Mélanie Drolet; Guillaume Gingras; Emily A Burger; Dave Martin; Kate T Simms; Élodie Bénard; Marie-Claude Boily; Stephen Sy; Catherine Regan; Adam Keane; Michael Caruana; Diep T N Nguyen; Megan A Smith; Jean-François Laprise; Mark Jit; Michel Alary; Freddie Bray; Elena Fidarova; Fayad Elsheikh; Paul J N Bloem; Nathalie Broutet; Raymond Hutubessy Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 79.321