Patrice Mathevet1,2, Benedetta Guani3,4, Andrea Ciobanu5, Eliane Mery Lamarche6, Florent Boutitie7, Vincent Balaya1,2, Fabrice Lecuru8,9. 1. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Benedetta.Guani@chuv.ch. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Benedetta.Guani@chuv.ch. 5. Department of Gynecology, Leman Hospital, Thonon Les Bains, France. 6. Department of Pathology, IUCT Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 7. Department of Biostatistics, University Hospital of Lyon, Lyon, France. 8. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 9. Department of Gynecology, Curie Institute, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy may be an alternative to systematic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer. The SLN biopsy is less morbid and has been shown to have high sensitivity for metastasis detection. However, the sensitivity of the SLN technique might be overevaluated because SLNs are examined with ultra-staging, and non-sentinel nodes usually are examined only with routine techniques. This study aimed to validate the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SLN technique by the ultra-staging of SLNs and non-sentinel nodes (NSLNs). METHODS: The SENTICOL 1 study data published in 2011 were used. All nodes (i.e., SLNs and NSLNs) were secondarily subjected to ultra-staging. The ultra-staging consisted of sectioning every 200 µm, in addition to immunohistochemistry. Moreover, the positive slides and 10% of the negative slides were reviewed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 139 patients, and SLNs were detected in 136 (97.8%) of these patiets. Bilateral SLNs were detected in 104 (76.5%) of the 136 patients. A total of 2056 NSLNs were identified (median, 13 NSLNs per patient; range 1-54). Of the 136 patients with SLNs, 23 were shown to have positive SLNs after serial sectioning and immunohistochemical staining. The NSLNs were metastatic in six patients. In the case of bilateral SLN detection, the NPV was 100%, with no false-negatives (FNs). CONCLUSIONS: The pelvic SLN technique is safe and trustworthy for determining the nodal status of patients with early-stage cervical cancer. In the case of optimal mapping with bilateral detection, the NPV was found to be 100%.
BACKGROUND: The sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy may be an alternative to systematic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer. The SLN biopsy is less morbid and has been shown to have high sensitivity for metastasis detection. However, the sensitivity of the SLN technique might be overevaluated because SLNs are examined with ultra-staging, and non-sentinel nodes usually are examined only with routine techniques. This study aimed to validate the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SLN technique by the ultra-staging of SLNs and non-sentinel nodes (NSLNs). METHODS: The SENTICOL 1 study data published in 2011 were used. All nodes (i.e., SLNs and NSLNs) were secondarily subjected to ultra-staging. The ultra-staging consisted of sectioning every 200 µm, in addition to immunohistochemistry. Moreover, the positive slides and 10% of the negative slides were reviewed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 139 patients, and SLNs were detected in 136 (97.8%) of these patiets. Bilateral SLNs were detected in 104 (76.5%) of the 136 patients. A total of 2056 NSLNs were identified (median, 13 NSLNs per patient; range 1-54). Of the 136 patients with SLNs, 23 were shown to have positive SLNs after serial sectioning and immunohistochemical staining. The NSLNs were metastatic in six patients. In the case of bilateral SLN detection, the NPV was 100%, with no false-negatives (FNs). CONCLUSIONS: The pelvic SLN technique is safe and trustworthy for determining the nodal status of patients with early-stage cervical cancer. In the case of optimal mapping with bilateral detection, the NPV was found to be 100%.
Authors: C Chargari; M Arbyn; A Leary; N R Abu-Rustum; P Basu; F Bray; S Chopra; R Nout; K Tanderup; A N Viswanathan; C Zacharopoulou; J C Soria; E Deutsch; S Gouy; P Morice Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 5.304