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

Hans Nagar, Nina Wietek, Richard J Goodall, Will Hughes, Mia Schmidt-Hansen, Jo Morrison
Author Information
  1. Hans Nagar: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital and the Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK.
  2. Nina Wietek: Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  3. Richard J Goodall: Department of Surgery and Cancer , Imperial College London, London, UK.
  4. Will Hughes: Department of Plastic Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
  5. Mia Schmidt-Hansen: National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
  6. Jo Morrison: Department of Gynaecological Oncology, GRACE Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.

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.

References

  1. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jun;225:35-39 [PMID: 29660577]
  2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:29-32 [PMID: 29529474]
  3. Ginekol Pol. 2015 Apr;86(4):262-7 [PMID: 26117984]
  4. Nihon Rinsho. 2012 Jun;70 Suppl 4:408-11 [PMID: 23156280]
  5. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2014;53(3):55-9 [PMID: 25509648]
  6. Lancet Oncol. 2017 May;18(5):e235 [PMID: 28495281]
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Sep;146(3):525-530 [PMID: 28625394]
  8. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 15;(5):CD010681 [PMID: 24832785]
  9. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Apr;117(1):59-64 [PMID: 20117827]
  10. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Feb;92(2):669-74 [PMID: 14766264]
  11. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):60-4 [PMID: 25449312]
  12. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Sep - Oct;26(6):1125-1132 [PMID: 30445188]
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6 [PMID: 21208779]
  14. Minerva Ginecol. 2018 Apr;70(2):194-214 [PMID: 29185673]
  15. Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Jun;34(6):590-6 [PMID: 23542912]
  16. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Aug;114(2):284-7 [PMID: 19447478]
  17. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Jul;15(7):1815-7 [PMID: 18473144]
  18. Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Oct;44(10):849 [PMID: 31205155]
  19. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Aug;23(8):2522-8 [PMID: 26905542]
  20. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):436-42 [PMID: 25870917]
  21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:142-152 [PMID: 32058069]
  22. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Aug;134(2):287-92 [PMID: 24823647]
  23. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Oct;25(8):1513-8 [PMID: 26397069]
  24. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2001;22(2):118-21 [PMID: 11446474]
  25. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):478-85 [PMID: 26047592]
  26. J Surg Oncol. 2010 Aug 1;102(2):111-8 [PMID: 20648579]
  27. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41 [PMID: 3652025]
  28. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Apr;129(1):42-8 [PMID: 23376806]
  29. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 May-Jun;23(4):470-1 [PMID: 26767824]
  30. CMAJ. 2008 Mar 25;178(7):855-62 [PMID: 18362381]
  31. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Sep;296(3):565-570 [PMID: 28744616]
  32. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127(1):153-60 [PMID: 22704950]
  33. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):588-95 [PMID: 15863164]
  34. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;191(2):435-9 [PMID: 15343218]
  35. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 May;133(2):274-7 [PMID: 24582865]
  36. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:77-80 [PMID: 29554604]
  37. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):281-282 [PMID: 28159464]
  38. Br J Cancer. 2011 Apr 26;104(9):1505-10 [PMID: 21522151]
  39. Front Oncol. 2021 Jan 13;10:580128 [PMID: 33520696]
  40. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005 Dec;27(12):1107-12 [PMID: 16524529]
  41. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Sep;106(3):631 [PMID: 17553553]
  42. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jul;126(1):25-9 [PMID: 22507531]
  43. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):54-9 [PMID: 25450151]
  44. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Sep;23(7):1237-43 [PMID: 23839245]
  45. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34(5):387-401 [PMID: 24475571]
  46. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Nov;23(9):1704-11 [PMID: 24177256]
  47. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 Jan 1;24(1):89-93 [PMID: 27725278]
  48. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006 Aug;27(4):353-63 [PMID: 16678497]
  49. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004 Mar;11(3):344-9 [PMID: 14993032]
  50. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;31(3):505-21, viii [PMID: 15450314]
  51. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 31;10:CD006655 [PMID: 30379327]
  52. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 [PMID: 22007046]
  53. Bull Soc R Belge Gynecol Obstet. 1965;35(4):291-305 [PMID: 5856819]
  54. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):339-345 [PMID: 32075897]
  55. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jul;106(1):89-93 [PMID: 17442383]
  56. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug;142(8):1831-6 [PMID: 27318493]
  57. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1365-83 [PMID: 24663048]
  58. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Jan;25(1):93-98 [PMID: 28807805]
  59. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;150(2):267-273 [PMID: 29909967]
  60. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(11):3749-3756 [PMID: 27160526]
  61. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019 Jan;38(1):52-58 [PMID: 28968296]
  62. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Nov;206:213-219 [PMID: 27750179]
  63. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249 [PMID: 33538338]
  64. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jul;40(7):843-9 [PMID: 24613744]
  65. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Mar;25(3):521-5 [PMID: 25621410]
  66. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jun;125(3):531-5 [PMID: 22366409]
  67. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2016 Apr 19;17:69-71 [PMID: 27453926]
  68. Bull Cancer. 2004 Apr;91(4):379-84 [PMID: 15242323]
  69. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Apr;291(4):897-905 [PMID: 25315381]
  70. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3981-3987 [PMID: 29058141]
  71. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Sep;27(7):1416-1421 [PMID: 30814241]
  72. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23(1):53-7 [PMID: 11876394]
  73. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):275-9 [PMID: 24291694]
  74. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004 Mar-Apr;14(2):271-8 [PMID: 15086726]
  75. Klin Onkol. 2010;23(2):92-8 [PMID: 20465087]
  76. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Sep 25;52(9):605-611 [PMID: 28954449]
  77. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):305-310 [PMID: 31857439]
  78. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Sep-Oct;22(6):1075-8 [PMID: 25967933]
  79. Bull Cancer. 2012 Jan;99(1):35-41 [PMID: 22198299]
  80. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Oct;147(1):18-23 [PMID: 28716308]
  81. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):234-239 [PMID: 28528918]
  82. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(6):1980-6 [PMID: 25391264]
  83. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):450-5 [PMID: 26438438]
  84. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Feb;40(2):327-34 [PMID: 24620369]
  85. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):346-351 [PMID: 31911534]
  86. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 May;137(2):291-8 [PMID: 25720294]
  87. Ann Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;31(1):93-99 [PMID: 27815812]
  88. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Sep;27(7):1517-1524 [PMID: 28562470]
  89. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Oct;111(1):62-7 [PMID: 18625518]
  90. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;143(3):313-318 [PMID: 30125949]
  91. Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Aug;62(2):169-73 [PMID: 8751545]
  92. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Sep;126(3):419-23 [PMID: 22659192]
  93. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):296-7; author reply 297 [PMID: 19167050]
  94. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2011 Dec 01;12(4):204-8 [PMID: 24591995]
  95. EJC Suppl. 2013 Sep;11(2):287-8 [PMID: 26217147]
  96. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Feb;16(2):201-209 [PMID: 29439179]
  97. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2015;36(6):643-6 [PMID: 26775344]
  98. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):352-357 [PMID: 31911539]
  99. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6691-6 [PMID: 26434896]
  100. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Nov 7;104(21):1625-34 [PMID: 22962693]
  101. Dan Med J. 2013 Jul;60(7):A4665 [PMID: 23809974]
  102. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):400-4 [PMID: 26731727]
  103. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Sep;138(3):542-7 [PMID: 26095896]
  104. Ceska Gynekol. 2006 May;71(3):231-6 [PMID: 16768052]
  105. Bull Cancer. 2015 May;102(5):428-35 [PMID: 25956349]
  106. Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;27(3):514-519 [PMID: 30217312]
  107. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):394-9 [PMID: 26747778]
  108. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:129-141 [PMID: 32060007]
  109. Lancet Oncol. 2011 May;12(5):469-76 [PMID: 21489874]
  110. Am J Surg. 2009 Jan;197(1):1-7 [PMID: 18558387]
  111. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 May;32(5):569-74 [PMID: 15625604]
  112. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5331-6 [PMID: 19805679]
  113. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 May;145(2):256-261 [PMID: 28196672]
  114. World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar 9;16(1):52 [PMID: 29523141]
  115. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jun;23(5):964-70 [PMID: 23694985]
  116. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;27(2):e23 [PMID: 26768786]
  117. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jan;28(1):139-144 [PMID: 29194192]
  118. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):291-298 [PMID: 31818860]
  119. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Oct 26;8:608 [PMID: 26502876]
  120. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):311-317 [PMID: 31992599]
  121. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Feb;112(2):348-52 [PMID: 19081610]
  122. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 Jun;22(5):830-5 [PMID: 22617479]
  123. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 May-Jun;23(4):628-32 [PMID: 26921484]
  124. BMJ. 2008 May 17;336(7653):1106-10 [PMID: 18483053]
  125. Lancet Oncol. 2017 May;18(5):e234 [PMID: 28495280]
  126. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):283-284 [PMID: 31953348]
  127. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 May;27(4):743-747 [PMID: 28375931]
  128. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jan;22(1):132-3 [PMID: 25135786]
  129. Minerva Ginecol. 2003 Jun;55(3):259-62 [PMID: 14581872]
  130. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 9;6:CD013021 [PMID: 34106467]
  131. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Aug;134(2):281-6 [PMID: 24882555]
  132. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1653-9 [PMID: 26714954]
  133. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Feb;20(2):407-12 [PMID: 23054119]
  134. Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Oct;44(10):848-849 [PMID: 31162253]
  135. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2013;16(1):17-25 [PMID: 23677759]
  136. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017 Jul-Sep;6(3):139-140 [PMID: 30254900]
  137. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;57(4):541-545 [PMID: 30122575]
  138. J Surg Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;97(2):141-5 [PMID: 18050286]
  139. Int J Surg. 2017 Nov;47:13-17 [PMID: 28919095]
  140. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):221-8 [PMID: 19922838]
  141. Int J Cancer. 2007 May 1;120(9):1842-6 [PMID: 17266039]
  142. J Surg Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;101(5):408-12 [PMID: 20119976]
  143. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(3):339-42 [PMID: 15171314]
  144. Ginekol Pol. 2003 Sep;74(9):830-5 [PMID: 14674132]
  145. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 28;380(9):822-832 [PMID: 30811909]
  146. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Jul;27(6):1165-1170 [PMID: 28604450]
  147. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):240-246 [PMID: 28577885]
  148. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Mar;25(3):423-30 [PMID: 25695546]
  149. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017 Aug;26(4):1896-1911 [PMID: 26116616]
  150. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Dec;123(3):522-7 [PMID: 21945553]
  151. Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 11;8(28):46601-46610 [PMID: 28410225]
  152. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Nov;135(2):196-200 [PMID: 25175452]
  153. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 27;(6):CD010409 [PMID: 24970683]
  154. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Apr;19(3):391-4 [PMID: 19407565]
  155. Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):e1381-e1387 [PMID: 31270269]
  156. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Mar-Apr;58(2):71-96 [PMID: 18287387]
  157. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-392 [PMID: 28159465]
  158. Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Dec;41(12):927-932 [PMID: 27749429]
  159. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2206-11 [PMID: 26790667]
  160. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39 [PMID: 33397713]
  161. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Mar - Apr;25(3):384-385 [PMID: 28939481]
  162. Nucl Med Commun. 2003 Sep;24(9):971-5 [PMID: 12960596]
  163. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;27(1):66-72 [PMID: 25502426]
  164. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;143(3):475-480 [PMID: 27812854]
  165. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jan;124(1):78-82 [PMID: 21996262]
  166. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010 Sep;22(5):487-91 [PMID: 20531186]
  167. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):332-7 [PMID: 22910695]
  168. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr;23(2):305-313 [PMID: 29098518]
  169. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Jul;24(6):1048-53 [PMID: 24927249]
  170. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jul;25(6):1044-50 [PMID: 25853384]
  171. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):325-331 [PMID: 32029429]
  172. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;29(3):239-41 [PMID: 18592786]
  173. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Dec;41(12):1659-63 [PMID: 26433709]
  174. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 [PMID: 19367689]
  175. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:89-98 [PMID: 26931285]
  176. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Feb 1;23(2):265-9 [PMID: 26455525]
  177. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Mar;148(3):485-490 [PMID: 29290489]
  178. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jun;133(3):506-11 [PMID: 24642092]
  179. Curr Oncol Rep. 2013 Dec;15(6):559-65 [PMID: 24190831]
  180. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Jan;29(1):60-67 [PMID: 30640685]
  181. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jan;104(1):100-3 [PMID: 16963111]
  182. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2014;53(6):25-8 [PMID: 25672134]
  183. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799 [PMID: 28137831]
  184. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2012 Sep;31(5):243-8 [PMID: 23067525]
  185. Med Sci Monit. 2004 Oct;10(10):CR587-91 [PMID: 15448599]
  186. Tumori. 2002 May-Jun;88(3):S9-10 [PMID: 12365393]
  187. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jul;35(7):675-85 [PMID: 18980825]
  188. Ann Oncol. 2007 Nov;18(11):1799-803 [PMID: 17709801]
  189. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Dec;115(3):453-5 [PMID: 19767064]
  190. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jul;24(7):1972-1979 [PMID: 28265777]
  191. Surg Oncol. 2008 Sep;17(3):237-45 [PMID: 18499443]
  192. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Oct;147(1):120-125 [PMID: 28751118]
  193. BMC Cancer. 2010 Aug 30;10:465 [PMID: 20804553]
  194. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2010 Dec;38(12):760-6 [PMID: 21111648]
  195. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Sep-Oct;17(5):1113-7 [PMID: 17386045]
  196. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(9):1511-1519 [PMID: 28374119]
  197. Nihon Rinsho. 2004 Oct;62 Suppl 10:391-5 [PMID: 15535274]
  198. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul;144(7):1385-1393 [PMID: 29691646]
  199. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Nov;131(2):299-303 [PMID: 23988415]
  200. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jun;105(3):683-6 [PMID: 17442382]
  201. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Feb;20(2):353-4 [PMID: 23054121]
  202. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;76(3):139-50 [PMID: 23942330]
  203. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424 [PMID: 30207593]
  204. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 May;15(5):1523-9 [PMID: 18322758]
  205. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2005 Dec;34(8):768-74 [PMID: 16319767]
  206. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Dec;131(3):714-9 [PMID: 24099838]
  207. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Dec;147(3):549-553 [PMID: 28942993]
  208. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2183-91 [PMID: 26714944]
  209. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):117.e1-7 [PMID: 26743505]
  210. J Res Med Sci. 2015 Feb;20(2):169-73 [PMID: 25983771]
  211. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):163-9 [PMID: 19232699]
  212. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Dec;143(3):479-483 [PMID: 27776838]
  213. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):443-7 [PMID: 25771495]
  214. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Apr;121(1):122-5 [PMID: 21194737]
  215. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 May;31(5):744-753 [PMID: 33187974]
  216. Med Radiol (Mosk). 1984 Jan;29(1):21-6 [PMID: 6694540]
  217. Bull Cancer. 2011 Feb;98(2):133-45 [PMID: 21382794]
  218. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jul;138(1):41-5 [PMID: 25891803]
  219. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2014;17(2):55-8 [PMID: 25088102]
  220. Clin Transl Imaging. 2016;4(5):411-420 [PMID: 27738629]
  221. Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Oct;40(10):780-5 [PMID: 26053711]
  222. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 02;10:CD007585 [PMID: 28968482]
  223. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Aug;122(2):251-4 [PMID: 21570109]
  224. South Med J. 1999 Feb;92(2):204-8 [PMID: 10071668]
  225. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Dec;31(12):1595-1601 [PMID: 34728527]
  226. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 May;105(2):457-61 [PMID: 17313975]
  227. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S105-43 [PMID: 17161155]
  228. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Sep;26(7):1228-38 [PMID: 27643647]
  229. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jan;128(1):88-94 [PMID: 23085461]
  230. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904 [PMID: 30380365]
  231. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Mar;148(3):491-498 [PMID: 29273307]
  232. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):459-476.e10 [PMID: 27871836]
  233. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;19(11):3515-21 [PMID: 22576066]

MeSH Term

Coloring Agents
Endometrial Neoplasms
Female
Fluorescent Antibody Technique
Humans
Indocyanine Green
Lymph Node Excision
Lymph Nodes
Pelvis
Radioactive Tracers
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared
Technetium

Chemicals

Coloring Agents
Radioactive Tracers
Technetium
Indocyanine Green

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studieswomenICG95%CIblueevidencelymphusedalonenodeSLNdyetechnetium-99mcancerSLNBlow-certaintycombinationdetection8%pelvicratelymphadenectomyendometrialinvolvementincludingtracersnodesexaminationmeansensitivitystudy2%1%5%informationtreatmentsentinelbiopsydiagnosticaccuracyincludedhistologicalpara-aorticdatausingtotalresultsrecordsfound2237119%90moderate-certainty4%100%7%97versusprovidesmaydecisionsadjuvantdyesegnearinfra-redindocyaninegreenidentificationstageJuly2019trialremoved+/-systematicreviewauthorsmethodologicalnumberdetectedpooled7333additional12Overall860%ranged776%559321rates9195different2basinsubserosalBACKGROUND:PelvicprognosticdiagnosedwombinfluenceregardingHowevershowntherapeuticbenefitcausessignificantmorbiditytechniqueallowsfirstdrainingidentifiedexaminedhistologicallycellscommonlycancersbreastvulvalDifferentcolloidlabelledradioactivetechnetium-99patentmethylenefluorescentsinglyOBJECTIVES:assesspresumedearlypriorsurgeryconsiderationSEARCHMETHODS:searchedMEDLINE1946Embase1974relevantCochraneregistersSELECTIONCRITERIA:evaluatedassessmentinvolvingplusreferencestandardfollowingPLND/PPALNDsufficientconstructiontwo-by-twotablesDATACOLLECTIONANDANALYSIS:TwoHNJMNWRGWHindependentlyscreenedtitlesabstractsrelevanceclassifiedinclusion/exclusionextractedassessedqualityQUADAS-2toolcalculatedarithmeticSLNswomanunitanalysisunivariatemeta-analyticalmethodsestimateestimatessummarisedGRADEMAINRESULTS:searchrevealed6259uniqueremovalduplicatesscreening232fulltextpotentiallyincludable52althoughableextract2x2table46inclusiondespitewritinganalysedfournineimmunofluorescenceonereportingpoorresultedlargeproportion'unclearriskbias'ratings82reportedbilateral6557consideredaccordingtracer7085positive5342017223%409were:99Technetium-99m6725747454892819539639821563%Meta-regressionanalysessensitivitiesdiffermajorityFIGO1A1Bassessingcervicalinjectionnotedfalse-positiveresultoccurunchangedAUTHORS'CONCLUSIONS:testeitherprobablygoodhighDetectionhighervalueapproachpathwaybaseduterinefactorsmolecularprofilingrequireshigh-qualityinterventionSentineldiagnosis

Similar Articles

Cited By