Yuqiang Huang1,2, Mengting Pan2, Bo Chen3,4. 1. Department of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhenhai Road, Xiamen, 361003, China. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, China. chenbo7892@xmu.edu.cn. 4. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhenhai Road, Xiamen, 361003, China. chenbo7892@xmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) plays an essential role in the evaluation of lymph node (LN) metastasis status and the extent of LN dissection in gastric cancer. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for corresponding identification rate and sensitivity of different SLNB techniques. METHODS: Systematic search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases was conducted for studies on SLNB in patients with gastric cancer. Studies were stratified according to the sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy technique: blue dye (BD), radiocolloid tracer (RI), indocyanine green (ICG), a combination of radiocolloid with blue dye (RI + BD), and a combination of radiocolloid with ICG (RI + ICG). A random-effect model was used to pool the identification rate, sensitivity, and accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 54 eligible studies (3767 patients) was included. The pooled identification rates of SLNB using BD, RI, ICG, RI + BD, RI + ICG were 95% (95%CI: 92-97%), 95% (95%CI: 93-97%), 99% (95%CI: 97-99%), 97% (95%CI: 96-98%), and 95% (95%CI: 87-99%), respectively. The pooled sensitivities were 82% (95%CI: 77-86%), 87% (95%CI: 81-92%), 90% (95%CI: 82-95%), 89% (95%CI: 84-93%), and 88% (95%CI: 79-94%), respectively. The pooled accuracies were 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), 95% (95%CI: 92-97%), 98% (95%CI: 95-99%), 97% (95%CI: 95-99%), and 98% (95%CI: 95-99%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that favors the use of ICG and dual tracer method (RI + BD/ICG) for the identification of the SLN. Considering the high costs and potential biohazard of using radioactive substances in dual tracer method, performing SLNB with ICG is the technique of choice for experienced surgeons.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) plays an essential role in the evaluation of lymph node (LN) metastasis status and the extent of LN dissection in gastric cancer. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for corresponding identification rate and sensitivity of different SLNB techniques. METHODS: Systematic search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases was conducted for studies on SLNB in patients with gastric cancer. Studies were stratified according to the sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy technique: blue dye (BD), radiocolloid tracer (RI), indocyanine green (ICG), a combination of radiocolloid with blue dye (RI + BD), and a combination of radiocolloid with ICG (RI + ICG). A random-effect model was used to pool the identification rate, sensitivity, and accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 54 eligible studies (3767 patients) was included. The pooled identification rates of SLNB using BD, RI, ICG, RI + BD, RI + ICG were 95% (95%CI: 92-97%), 95% (95%CI: 93-97%), 99% (95%CI: 97-99%), 97% (95%CI: 96-98%), and 95% (95%CI: 87-99%), respectively. The pooled sensitivities were 82% (95%CI: 77-86%), 87% (95%CI: 81-92%), 90% (95%CI: 82-95%), 89% (95%CI: 84-93%), and 88% (95%CI: 79-94%), respectively. The pooled accuracies were 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), 95% (95%CI: 92-97%), 98% (95%CI: 95-99%), 97% (95%CI: 95-99%), and 98% (95%CI: 95-99%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that favors the use of ICG and dual tracer method (RI + BD/ICG) for the identification of the SLN. Considering the high costs and potential biohazard of using radioactive substances in dual tracer method, performing SLNB with ICG is the technique of choice for experienced surgeons.
Authors: Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim; Young Soo Park; Hye Seung Lee; Won Woo Lee; Hyuk-Joon Lee; Han-Kwang Yang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Jan Bogaerts; Nicole Duez; Luigi Cataliotti; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Helen A Westenberg; Huub van der Mijle; Marko Snoj; Coen Hurkmans; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Daniel Skubleny; Jerry T Dang; Samuel Skulsky; Noah Switzer; Chunhong Tian; Xinzhe Shi; Christopher de Gara; Daniel W Birch; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Belia; Alberto Biondi; Annamaria Agnes; Pietro Santocchi; Antonio Laurino; Laura Lorenzon; Roberto Pezzuto; Flavio Tirelli; Lorenzo Ferri; Domenico D'Ugo; Roberto Persiani Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-06-28