| Literature DB >> 35882605 |
Lara C Burg1, Shenna Verheijen2, Ruud L M Bekkers3,4,5, Joanna IntHout6, Robert W Holloway7, Salih Taskin8, Sarah E Ferguson9,10, Yu Xue11, Antonino Ditto12, Glauco Baiocchi13, Andrea Papadia14,15, Giorgio Bogani16, Alessandro Buda17,18, Roy F P M Kruitwagen2,3,4, Petra L M Zusterzeel2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the SLN detection rate in presumed early stage, low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancers, the incidence of SLN metastases, and the negative predictive value of SLN mapping performed with indocyanine green (ICG).Entities:
Keywords: Endometrial Cancer; Indocyanine Green; Lymphadenectomy; Meta-Analysis; Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping; Systematic Review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35882605 PMCID: PMC9428296 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e66
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gynecol Oncol ISSN: 2005-0380 Impact factor: 4.756
Fig. 1Summary of the peer-reviewed literature search and selection. All processes were conducted by 2 independent reviewers (LB/SV).
IGC, indocyanine green; LND, lymph node dissection; SLN, sentinel lymph node.
Baseline information of included studies (n=14) which are included in the analysis of the detection rate of SLN mapping (all studies)
| Author | Year of publication | Study design | Study population | Tumor grade (all endometrioid histology) | Patients with SLN mapping with ICG | SLN detection | SLN meta-stasis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ? | Bilateral | Unilateral | None | ||||||
| Backes et al. [ | 2019 | P | 204 | 127 | 26 | 51 | 0 | 204 | 138 | 46 | 20 | 32 |
| Bogani et al. [ | 2020 | R | 62 | 12 | 41 | 9 | 0 | 62 | 59 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| Buda et al. [ | 2016 | R | 85 | 35 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 22 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Clinton et al. [ | 2017 | R | 350 | 212 | 138 | 0 | 0 | 187 | 120 | 65 | 2 | 24 |
| Cusimano et al. [ | 2021 | P | 156 | 0 | 30 | 126 | 0 | 156 | 121 | 31 | 4 | G1–2: 3 |
| G1–3: 24 | ||||||||||||
| Diniz et al. [ | 2021 | R | 253 | 167 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 68 | 62 | 3 | 3 | 7 |
| Ditto et al. [ | 2020 | P | 121 | 60 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 121 | 85 | 19 | 17 | 8 |
| Holloway et al. [ | 2016 | R | 119 | 46 | 44 | 29 | 0 | 119 | 96 | 21 | 2 | 35 |
| Papadia et al. [ | 2016 | R | 65 | 24 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 59 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Rossi et al. [ | 2017 | P | 340 | 152 | 102 | 38 | 48 | 340 | 177 | 116 | 47 | 35 |
| Stephens et al. [ | 2020 | R | 323 | 212 | 111 | 0 | 0 | 323 | 278 | 33 | 12 | 58 |
| Taskin et al. [ | 2020 | R | 281 | 161 | 120 | 0 | 0 | 186 | 129 | 41 | 16 | 11 |
| Xue et al. [ | 2021 | R | 132 | 82 | 21 | 27 | 0 | 130 | 85 | 39 | 6 | 7 |
| Ye et al. [ | 2019 | P | 131 | 98 | 8 | 25 | 0 | 131 | 81 | 41 | 9 | G1–2: 3 |
| G1–3: 4 | ||||||||||||
G1–2, patients with tumor grade 1 or 2; G1–3, patients with tumor grade 1, 2 of 3; P, prospective; R, retrospective.
Baseline information of included studies (n=8) which are included in the analysis of the negative predictive value of SLN mapping
| Author | Year of publication | Study design | Study population | Patients underwent SLN mapping with ICG with subsequent lymph node dissection | Metastasis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In SLN (%) | Not in SLN, but in other lymph node (i.e., false-negative SLN) | ||||||
| Including grade 1 and 2 | |||||||
| Cusimano et al. [ | 2021 | P | 30 | 30 | 3 (10) | 0 | |
| Stephens et al. [ | 2020 | R | 323 | 323 | 58 (18) | 0 | |
| Ye et al. [ | 2019 | P | 106 | 97 | 3 (3) | 0 | |
| Including grade 1–3 | |||||||
| Backes et al. [ | 2019 | P | 204 | 204 | 32 (16) | 2 | |
| Bogani et al. [ | 2020 | R | 62 | 62 | 9 (15) | 0 | |
| Cusimano et al. [ | 2021 | P | 156 | 156 | 24 (15) | 3 | |
| Holloway et al. [ | 2016 | R | 119 | 119 | 35 (29) | 1 | |
| Rossi et al. [ | 2017 | P | 340 | 340 | 35 (10) | 1 | |
| Xue et al. [ | 2021 | R | 130 | 130 | 7 (5) | 2 | |
| Ye et al. [ | 2019 | P | 131 | 131 | 4 (3) | 4 | |
Note that the diagnostic value was calculated twice: for studies including grade 1–2 endometrial cancer, and for studies including grade 1, 2, and 3 endometrial cancer.
ICG, indocyanine green; P, prospective; R, retrospective; SLN, sentinel lymph node.
Fig. 2Detection rates of the SLN in all studies. (A) Overall detection rate of the SLN. (B) Bilateral detection rate of the SLN. (C) Unilateral detection rate of the SLN.
CI, confidence interval; SLN, sentinel lymph node.
Fig. 3Incidence of SLN metastases in endometrial cancer. (A) Incidence of SLN metastases in grade 1–2 endometrial cancer. (B) Incidence of SLN metastases in grade 1, 2, and 3 endometrial cancer.
CI, confidence interval; SLN, sentinel lymph node.
Fig. 4Diagnostic value (negative predictive value) of SLN mapping. (A) Negative predictive value of SLN mapping in grade 1–2 endometrial cancer. (B) Negative predictive value of SLN mapping in grade 1–3 endometrial cancer.
CI, confidence interval; SLN, sentinel lymph node.