Risk factors associated with false negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meng-Si Fan, Ke-Xin Qiu, Dong-Yue Wang, Hao Wang, Wei-Wei Zhang, Li Yan
Author Information
  1. Meng-Si Fan: Department of Gynecology, Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Second Medical University, Key Laboratory of Laparoscopic Technology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
  2. Ke-Xin Qiu: Department of Gynecology, Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Second Medical University, Key Laboratory of Laparoscopic Technology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
  3. Dong-Yue Wang: School of Clinical Medicine, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
  4. Hao Wang: School of Clinical Medicine, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
  5. Wei-Wei Zhang: Department of Gynecology, Tengzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Tengzhou, Shandong, China.
  6. Li Yan: Department of Gynecology, Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Second Medical University, Key Laboratory of Laparoscopic Technology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.

Abstract

Objective: Currently, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is increasingly used in endometrial cancer, but the rate of missed metastatic lymph nodes compared to systemic lymph node dissection has been a concern. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) of SLNB in patients with endometrial cancer and to explore the risk factors associated with this FNR.
Data sources: Three databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) were searched from initial database build to January 2023 by two independent reviewers.
Research eligibility criteria: Studies were included if they included 10 or more women diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or higher endometrial cancer, the study technique used sentinel lymph node localization biopsy, and the reported outcome metrics included false negative and/or FNR.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Two authors independently reviewed the abstracts and full articles. The FNR and factors associated with FNR were synthesized through random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression.
The results: We identified 62 eligible studies. The overall FNR for the 62 articles was 4% (95% CL 3-5).There was no significant difference in the FNR in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer compared to patients with low-risk endometrial cancer. There was no difference in the FNR for whether frozen sections were used intraoperatively. The type of dye used intraoperatively (indocyanine green/blue dye) were not significantly associated with the false negative rate. Cervical injection reduced the FNR compared with alternative injection techniques. Indocyanine green reduced the FNR compared with alternative Tc-99m. Postoperative pathologic ultrastaging reduced the FNR.
Conclusions: Alternative injection techniques (other than the cervix), Tc-99m dye tracer, and the absence of postoperative pathologic ultrastaging are risk factors for a high FNR in endometrial cancer patients who undergo SLNB; therefore, we should be vigilant for missed diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes after SLNB in such populations.
Systematic review registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023433637.

Keywords

References

  1. J Surg Oncol. 2024 Feb;129(2):403-409 [PMID: 37859537]
  2. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):478-85 [PMID: 26047592]
  3. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. ;18(2):431-435 [PMID: 28345826]
  4. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):240-246 [PMID: 28577885]
  5. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Mar;144(3):503-509 [PMID: 28104296]
  6. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb 08;15(4): [PMID: 36831434]
  7. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 May;299(5):1429-1435 [PMID: 30747328]
  8. J Surg Oncol. 2021 Dec;124(8):1551-1560 [PMID: 34496048]
  9. J Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb;125(2):256-263 [PMID: 34569625]
  10. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Sep - Oct;26(6):1125-1132 [PMID: 30445188]
  11. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36 [PMID: 19070889]
  12. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Feb;92(2):669-74 [PMID: 14766264]
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):60-4 [PMID: 25449312]
  14. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):436-42 [PMID: 25870917]
  15. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;154(1):53-59 [PMID: 31027899]
  16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Oct;225(4):367.e1-367.e39 [PMID: 34058168]
  17. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Sep;296(3):565-570 [PMID: 28744616]
  18. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:77-80 [PMID: 29554604]
  19. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023 Jul 3;33(7):1063-1069 [PMID: 37105584]
  20. Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jul;116:77-85 [PMID: 31181536]
  21. JAMA Surg. 2021 Feb 1;156(2):157-164 [PMID: 33175109]
  22. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Nov;151(2):235-242 [PMID: 30177461]
  23. J Robot Surg. 2020 Feb;14(1):35-40 [PMID: 30687881]
  24. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Nov;23(9):1704-11 [PMID: 24177256]
  25. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Mar;164(3):492-497 [PMID: 35033380]
  26. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004 Mar;11(3):344-9 [PMID: 14993032]
  27. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 May 26;58(6): [PMID: 35743975]
  28. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jun;153(3):496-499 [PMID: 31230614]
  29. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;150(2):267-273 [PMID: 29909967]
  30. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019 Jan;38(1):52-58 [PMID: 28968296]
  31. J Minim Access Surg. 2021 Oct-Dec;17(4):479-485 [PMID: 33605932]
  32. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):332-338 [PMID: 31911536]
  33. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022 Apr 4;32(4):517-524 [PMID: 35110375]
  34. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jun;125(3):531-5 [PMID: 22366409]
  35. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2016 Apr 19;17:69-71 [PMID: 27453926]
  36. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3981-3987 [PMID: 29058141]
  37. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Sep;27(7):1416-1421 [PMID: 30814241]
  38. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Nov-Dec;18(6):1163-8 [PMID: 18217960]
  39. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):234-239 [PMID: 28528918]
  40. Front Oncol. 2021 Apr 15;11:654285 [PMID: 33937061]
  41. EJNMMI Res. 2021 Dec 14;11(1):123 [PMID: 34905122]
  42. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jun;153(3):676-683 [PMID: 30952370]
  43. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;143(3):313-318 [PMID: 30125949]
  44. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Sep;126(3):419-23 [PMID: 22659192]
  45. Front Oncol. 2022 Sep 16;12:965029 [PMID: 36185260]
  46. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov;140:1-10 [PMID: 33027722]
  47. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6691-6 [PMID: 26434896]
  48. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;11(4):699-704 [PMID: 33299284]
  49. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2015;36(6):643-6 [PMID: 26775344]
  50. Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;27(3):514-519 [PMID: 30217312]
  51. Lancet Oncol. 2011 May;12(5):469-76 [PMID: 21489874]
  52. Am J Surg. 2009 Jan;197(1):1-7 [PMID: 18558387]
  53. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 May;145(2):256-261 [PMID: 28196672]
  54. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jun;23(5):964-70 [PMID: 23694985]
  55. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;125(4):1006-1026 [PMID: 25798986]
  56. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Sep;23(7):1266-9 [PMID: 23851678]
  57. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):23 [PMID: 29213225]
  58. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022 May 3;32(5):676-679 [PMID: 35236752]
  59. Curr Oncol. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):1123-1135 [PMID: 35200595]
  60. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 13;14(4): [PMID: 35205676]
  61. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1653-9 [PMID: 26714954]
  62. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;57(4):541-545 [PMID: 30122575]
  63. J Surg Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;97(2):141-5 [PMID: 18050286]
  64. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16 [PMID: 19033573]
  65. Int J Surg. 2017 Nov;47:13-17 [PMID: 28919095]
  66. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Mar;25(3):423-30 [PMID: 25695546]
  67. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):299-304 [PMID: 31857440]
  68. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):405-415 [PMID: 28566221]
  69. Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):e1381-e1387 [PMID: 31270269]
  70. Chin J Cancer Res. 2014 Oct;26(5):627-31 [PMID: 25400430]
  71. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-392 [PMID: 28159465]
  72. Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Dec;41(12):927-932 [PMID: 27749429]
  73. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2206-11 [PMID: 26790667]
  74. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39 [PMID: 33397713]
  75. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;27(1):66-72 [PMID: 25502426]
  76. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):332-7 [PMID: 22910695]
  77. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr;23(2):305-313 [PMID: 29098518]
  78. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Jul;24(6):1048-53 [PMID: 24927249]
  79. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jul;25(6):1044-50 [PMID: 25853384]
  80. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):325-331 [PMID: 32029429]
  81. South Med J. 2021 Nov;114(11):680-685 [PMID: 34729610]
  82. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jun;133(3):506-11 [PMID: 24642092]
  83. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;155 Suppl 1:45-60 [PMID: 34669196]
  84. Curr Oncol Rep. 2013 Dec;15(6):559-65 [PMID: 24190831]
  85. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Nov;29(6):e94 [PMID: 30207102]
  86. J Surg Oncol. 2021 Sep;124(3):411-419 [PMID: 34086291]
  87. Oncol Lett. 2017 Dec;14(6):7669-7675 [PMID: 29344213]
  88. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Sep;25(7):1266-70 [PMID: 26067862]
  89. Ann Oncol. 2007 Nov;18(11):1799-803 [PMID: 17709801]
  90. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Sep-Oct;17(5):1113-7 [PMID: 17386045]
  91. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jul;24(7):1972-1979 [PMID: 28265777]
  92. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jul;32(4):e52 [PMID: 33908710]
  93. Lancet. 2022 Apr 9;399(10333):1412-1428 [PMID: 35397864]
  94. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul;144(7):1385-1393 [PMID: 29691646]
  95. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Dec;147(3):549-553 [PMID: 28942993]
  96. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2183-91 [PMID: 26714944]
  97. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):117.e1-7 [PMID: 26743505]
  98. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):163-9 [PMID: 19232699]
  99. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Jan;27(1):22-23 [PMID: 31201941]
  100. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 May;31(5):744-753 [PMID: 33187974]
  101. Chin Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr;10(2):17 [PMID: 33440947]
  102. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):288-97 [PMID: 24586087]
  103. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Feb;16(2):170-199 [PMID: 29439178]
  104. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014 Oct;58(5):538-46; quiz 648 [PMID: 25046775]
  105. Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jan;154:327-353 [PMID: 33712263]
  106. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Jan;63(1):11-30 [PMID: 23335087]
  107. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 May;141(2):206-210 [PMID: 26905211]
  108. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):613-621 [PMID: 30712017]
  109. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 May;105(2):457-61 [PMID: 17313975]
  110. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jan;128(1):88-94 [PMID: 23085461]
  111. Ann Surg. 2022 Nov 1;276(5):913-920 [PMID: 35894448]
  112. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Mar;148(3):491-498 [PMID: 29273307]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0FNRendometriallymphcancernodesentinelbiopsySLNBusedratecomparedfalsenegativepatientsfactorsassociatedreviewmeta-analysisincludeddyeinjectionreducedmissedmetastaticnodessystematicriskarticles62differenceintraoperativelyalternativetechniquesTc-99mpathologicultrastagingObjective:CurrentlyincreasinglysystemicdissectionconcernconductedevaluateexploreDatasources:ThreedatabasesPubMedEmbaseWebSciencesearchedinitialdatabasebuildJanuary2023twoindependentreviewersResearcheligibilitycriteria:Studies10womendiagnosedInternationalFederationGynecologyObstetricsFIGOstagehigherstudytechniquelocalizationreportedoutcomemetricsand/orStudyappraisalsynthesismethods:Twoauthorsindependentlyreviewedabstractsfullsynthesizedrandom-effectsmeta-analysesmeta-regressionTheresults:identifiedeligiblestudiesoverall4%95%CL3-5Theresignificanthigh-risklow-riskwhetherfrozensectionstypeindocyaninegreen/bluesignificantlyCervicalIndocyaninegreenPostoperativeConclusions:AlternativecervixtracerabsencepostoperativehighundergothereforevigilantdiagnosispopulationsSystematicregistration:http://wwwcrdyorkacuk/PROSPERO/identifierCRD42023433637Riskcancer:neoplasms

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)