Literature DB >> 34106467

Sentinel node biopsy for diagnosis of lymph node involvement in endometrial cancer.

Hans Nagar1, Nina Wietek2, Richard J Goodall3, Will Hughes4, Mia Schmidt-Hansen5, Jo Morrison6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymphadenectomy provides prognostic information for those diagnosed with endometrial (womb) cancer and provides information that may influence decisions regarding adjuvant treatment. However, studies have not shown a therapeutic benefit, and lymphadenectomy causes significant morbidity. The technique of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), allows the first draining node from a cancer to be identified and examined histologically for involvement with cancer cells. SLNB is commonly used in other cancers, including breast and vulval cancer. Different tracers, including colloid labelled with radioactive technetium-99, blue dyes, e.g. patent or methylene blue, and near infra-red fluorescent dyes, e.g. indocyanine green (ICG), have been used singly or in combination for detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the identification of pelvic lymph node involvement in women with endometrial cancer, presumed to be at an early stage prior to surgery, including consideration of the detection rate. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to July 2019), Embase (1974 to July 2019) and the relevant Cochrane trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of tracers for SLN assessment (involving the identification of a SLN plus histological examination) against a reference standard of histological examination of removed pelvic +/- para-aortic lymph nodes following systematic pelvic +/- para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PLND/PPALND) in women with endometrial cancer, where there were sufficient data for the construction of two-by-two tables. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (a combination of HN, JM, NW, RG, and WH) independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, classified studies for inclusion/exclusion and extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We calculated the detection rate as the arithmetic mean of the total number of SLNs detected out of the total number of women included in the included studies with the woman as the unit of analysis, used univariate meta-analytical methods to estimate pooled sensitivity estimates, and summarised the results using GRADE. MAIN
RESULTS: The search revealed 6259 unique records after removal of duplicates. After screening 232 studies in full text, we found 73 potentially includable records (for 52 studies), although we were only able to extract 2x2 table data for 33 studies, including 2237 women (46 records) for inclusion in the review, despite writing to trial authors for additional information. We found 11 studies that analysed results for blue dye alone, four studies for technetium-99m alone, 12 studies that used a combination of blue dye and technetium-99m, nine studies that used indocyanine green (ICG) and near infra-red immunofluorescence, and one study that used a combination of ICG and technetium-99m. Overall, the methodological reporting in most of the studies was poor, which resulted in a very large proportion of 'unclear risk of bias' ratings. Overall, the mean SLN detection rate was 86.9% (95% CI 82.9% to 90.8%; 2237 women; 33 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In studies that reported bilateral detection the mean rate was 65.4% (95% CI 57.8% to 73.0%) . When considered according to which tracer was used, the SLN detection rate ranged from 77.8% (95% CI 70.0% to 85.6%) for blue dye alone (559 women; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence) to 100% for ICG and technetium-99m (32 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The rates of positive lymph nodes ranged from 5.2% to 34.4% with a mean of 20.1% (95% CI 17.7% to 22.3%). The pooled sensitivity of SLNB was 91.8% (95% CI 86.5% to 95.1%; total 2237 women, of whom 409 had SLN involvement; moderate-certainty evidence). The sensitivity for of SLNB for the different tracers were: blue dye alone 95.2% (95% CI 77.2% to 99.2%; 559 women; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence); Technetium-99m alone 90.5% (95% CI 67.7% to 97.7%; 257 women; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence); technetium-99m and blue dye 91.9% (95% CI 74.4% to 97.8%; 548 women; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence); ICG alone 92.5% (95% CI 81.8% to 97.1%; 953 women; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); ICG and blue dye 90.5% (95% CI 63.2.6% to 98.1%; 215 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and ICG and technetium-99m 100% (95% CI 63% to 100%; 32 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses found that the sensitivities did not differ between the different tracers used, between studies with a majority of women with FIGO stage 1A versus 1B or above; between studies assessing the pelvic lymph node basin alone versus the pelvic and para-aortic lymph node basin; or between studies that used subserosal alone versus subserosal and cervical injection. It should be noted that a false-positive result cannot occur, as the histological examination of the SLN is unchanged by the results from any additional nodes removed at systematic lymphadenectomy. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic test accuracy for SLNB using either ICG alone or a combination of a dye (blue or ICG) and technetium-99m is probably good, with high sensitivity, where a SLN could be detected. Detection rates with ICG or a combination of dye (ICG or blue) and technetium-99m may be higher. The value of a SLNB approach in a treatment pathway, over adjuvant treatment decisions based on uterine factors and molecular profiling, requires examination in a high-quality intervention study.
Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34106467      PMCID: PMC8189170          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013021.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  233 in total

1.  Sentinel-lymph-node mapping in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Mikel Gorostidi; Ruben Ruiz
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 41.316

2.  [Sentinel lymph node detection in endometrial cancer].

Authors:  Tomoyuki Nagai; Hitoshi Niikura; Nobuo Yaegashi
Journal:  Nihon Rinsho       Date:  2012-06

3.  Sentinel node mapping in endometrial cancer following Hysteroscopic injection of tracers: A single center evaluation over 200 cases.

Authors:  Fabio Martinelli; Antonino Ditto; Mauro Signorelli; Giorgio Bogani; Valentina Chiappa; Domenica Lorusso; Cono Scaffa; Dario Recalcati; Stefania Perotto; Edward Haeusler; Francesco Raspagliesi
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  The safety and feasibility of minimally invasive sentinel lymph node staging using indocyanine green in the management of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Alberto A Mendivil; Lisa N Abaid; John V Brown; Kristina M Mori; Tiffany L Beck; Howard D Epstein; John P Micha; Bram H Goldstein
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.435

5.  Single photon emission computed tomography SPECT-CT improves sentinel node detection and localization in cervical and uterine malignancy.

Authors:  Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Mary L Gemignani; Ashima Lyall; Steven M Larson; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu Rustum
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Value and best way for detection of Sentinel lymph node in early stage endometrial cancer: Selective lymphadenectomy algorithm.

Authors:  Ahmed Samy El-Agwany; Mahmoud Hanafy Meleis
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 2.435

7.  [Micrometastases in sentinel lymph node in endometrial cancer patients].

Authors:  Sambor Sawicki; Juliusz Kobierski; Marcin Liro; Szymon Wojtylak; Piotr Lass; Dariusz Wydra
Journal:  Ginekol Pol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.232

8.  [Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer - methods].

Authors:  G Yordanov; S Gorchev; N Tomov
Journal:  Akush Ginekol (Sofiia)       Date:  2014

9.  Sentinel lymph node detection in patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Hitoshi Niikura; Chikako Okamura; Hiroki Utsunomiya; Kosuke Yoshinaga; Junichi Akahira; Kiyoshi Ito; Nobuo Yaegashi
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 10.  Adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Khadra Galaal; Mansour Al Moundhri; Andrew Bryant; Alberto D Lopes; Theresa A Lawrie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-05-15
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Node Biopsy in High-Grade Uterine Cancers.

Authors:  Jeffrey A How; Michael Frumovitz; Katherine I Stewart; Pamela T Soliman
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 5.945

Review 2.  Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Authors:  Vincenzo Dario Mandato; Andrea Palicelli; Federica Torricelli; Valentina Mastrofilippo; Chiara Leone; Vittoria Dicarlo; Alessandro Tafuni; Giacomo Santandrea; Gianluca Annunziata; Matteo Generali; Debora Pirillo; Gino Ciarlini; Lorenzo Aguzzoli
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-18

Review 3.  Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in High-Grade Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Lina Salman; Maria C Cusimano; Zibi Marchocki; Sarah E Ferguson
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping: Current Applications and Future Perspectives in Gynecology Malignant Tumors.

Authors:  Tianyou Wang; Yan Xu; Wenyu Shao; Chao Wang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-29

5.  Technetium Tc 99m tilmanocept fails to detect sentinel lymph nodes in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Ravali A Reddy; Ashley S Moon; Stephanie Chow; Lucas Heilbroner; Brooke Howitt; Elisabeth Diver; Oliver Dorigo; Babak Litkouhi; Malte Renz; Amer Karam
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-07-30

6.  Sentinel node biopsy for diagnosis of lymph node involvement in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Hans Nagar; Nina Wietek; Richard J Goodall; Will Hughes; Mia Schmidt-Hansen; Jo Morrison
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-06-09
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.