Sentinel lymph node mapping in high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qiang Ji, Xiuying Wang, Jiyong Jiang, Liyan Chen
Author Information
  1. Qiang Ji: Gynecological Oncology Ward, Dalian Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
  2. Xiuying Wang: Gynecological Oncology Ward, Dalian Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
  3. Jiyong Jiang: Gynecological Oncology Ward, Dalian Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
  4. Liyan Chen: Gynecological Oncology Ward, Dalian Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the staging of endometrial cancer (EC), the role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping for high-risk EC is still unclear.
METHODS: Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion and assessed study quality. English studies published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library before 20th SEP, 2019 were retrieved to perform a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis which evaluate the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of SLN mapping in high-risk EC. Statistical analysis was conducted using stata14.0 software.
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included, including 758 high-risk EC patients. The detection rate of SLN mapping was 84.8% (95% CI, 79.9-89.6%). The pooled bilateral detection rate was 67.0% (95% CI, 56.8-77.3%). The pooled para-aortic detection rate was 8.4% (95% CI, 1.8-14.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI, 79-92%), and the pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI, 96-99%). Pooled negative predictive value (NPV) was 97.7% (95% CI, 96.4-99.1%), AUC =0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-0.099).
CONCLUSIONS: SLN mapping still has a high detection rate and diagnostic accuracy in high-risk EC. SLN mapping is a reliable alternative to systematic lymph node dissection, but its prognostic effect on high-risk EC is yet to be further studied and verified by large sample studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 May;299(5):1429-1435 [PMID: 30747328]
  2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:77-80 [PMID: 29554604]
  3. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):54-9 [PMID: 25450151]
  4. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):38-43 [PMID: 24120926]
  5. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jun;125(3):531-5 [PMID: 22366409]
  6. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;143(3):313-318 [PMID: 30125949]
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):394-9 [PMID: 26747778]
  8. Cancer. 1993 Feb 15;71(4 Suppl):1460-3 [PMID: 8431880]
  9. Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):e1381-e1387 [PMID: 31270269]
  10. Cancer. 1977 Feb;39(2):456-66 [PMID: 837331]
  11. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jun;133(3):506-11 [PMID: 24642092]
  12. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Mar;144(3):503-509 [PMID: 28104296]
  13. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36 [PMID: 19070889]
  14. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):60-4 [PMID: 25449312]
  15. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2019;84(4):383-389 [PMID: 30661071]
  16. Transl Cancer Res. 2019 Oct;8(6):2218-2219 [PMID: 35116973]
  17. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2016 Apr 19;17:69-71 [PMID: 27453926]
  18. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3981-3987 [PMID: 29058141]
  19. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):234-239 [PMID: 28528918]
  20. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;154(3):475-479 [PMID: 31345606]
  21. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jun;23(5):964-70 [PMID: 23694985]
  22. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jan;28(1):139-144 [PMID: 29194192]
  23. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Dec;115(3):453-5 [PMID: 19767064]
  24. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul;144(7):1385-1393 [PMID: 29691646]
  25. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;23(1):196-202 [PMID: 25994210]
  26. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Dec;147(3):549-553 [PMID: 28942993]
  27. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):117.e1-7 [PMID: 26743505]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0EChigh-risk95%CISLNmappingdetectionratelymphnodepooledstudiessystematicendometrialcancersentinelstillmeta-analysisdiagnosticaccuracy0BACKGROUND:stagingroleunclearMETHODS:Twoauthorsindependentlyreviewedabstractsfull-textarticlesinclusionassessedstudyqualityEnglishpublishedPubMedEmbaseCochraneLibrary20thSEP2019retrievedperformevaluationevaluateStatisticalanalysisconductedusingstata14softwareRESULTS:total12includedincluding758patients848%799-896%bilateral670%568-773%para-aortic84%18-149%sensitivity87%79-92%specificity98%96-99%PoolednegativepredictivevalueNPV977%964-991%AUC=09997-0099CONCLUSIONS:highreliablealternativedissectionprognosticeffectyetstudiedverifiedlargesampleSentinelcancer:reviewEndometrial

Similar Articles

Cited By