Rajanbabu Anupama, Agarwal Reshu
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwavidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwavidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:77-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.03.017. Epub 2018 Mar 13.
Sentinel node mapping is emerging as the alternative to lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. The objective of our study is to validate of the sentinel node mapping surgical algorithm and also to compare the performance of the algorithm against endometrial cancer risk subtypes DESIGN: This is a prospective interventional study carried out at a Single University teaching hospital. All patients with apparent early stage endometrial cancer who underwent robotic assisted surgical staging were included. Intracervical injection of Indocyanine Green dye and sentinel node identification and biopsy was done for all study patients. The node positive rate when using SLN mapping alone versus SLN mapping algorithm were compared. The node positivity was compared against various risk subtypes of endometrial cancer.
69 patients were included in the study. In 95.7% patients SLN was detected with a bilateral detection rate of 87.9%. 10 patients had nodal positivity, among which 7 were identified by SLN mapping alone. The algorithm captured all 10 patients with positive LNs, yielding a node positivity rate of 14.9%, sensitivity and NPV of 100%. For SLN mapping alone the sensitivity was 77.8%, false negative rate (FNR) 22.2%, and NPV 96.6%. In low- and intermediate-risk subtypes SLN mapping as well as algorithm identified all node positive patients, but in high-risk endometrial cancers the SLN mapping technique alone had a sensitivity of 57.1% and false-negative rate of 42.9% when compared with 100% sensitivity for the SLN mapping algorithm.
When doing SLN mapping and biopsy during endometrial cancer staging surgery it is essential that the steps mentioned in the SLN mapping algorithm are followed as SLN mapping alone seems to have a limitation in detecting positive nodes especially in high risk subtypes of endometrial cancer. Even with the lack of survival data, based on the performance of SLN mapping surgical algorithm (even if ultrastaging facility is not available), it seems to be a better technique in detecting metastatic nodes, giving prognostic information, and enabling accurate adjuvant treatment.
前哨淋巴结 mapping 正逐渐成为子宫内膜癌淋巴结切除术的替代方法。我们研究的目的是验证前哨淋巴结 mapping 手术算法,并将该算法的性能与子宫内膜癌风险亚型进行比较。
这是一项在单一大学教学医院进行的前瞻性干预研究。纳入所有接受机器人辅助手术分期的早期子宫内膜癌患者。对所有研究患者进行宫颈内注射吲哚菁绿染料,并进行前哨淋巴结识别和活检。比较单独使用前哨淋巴结 mapping 与前哨淋巴结 mapping 算法时的淋巴结阳性率。将淋巴结阳性情况与子宫内膜癌的各种风险亚型进行比较。
69 例患者纳入研究。95.7%的患者检测到前哨淋巴结,双侧检测率为 87.9%。10 例患者有淋巴结阳性,其中 7 例仅通过前哨淋巴结 mapping 识别。该算法捕获了所有 10 例淋巴结阳性患者,淋巴结阳性率为 14.9%,敏感性和阴性预测值均为 100%。单独进行前哨淋巴结 mapping 时,敏感性为 77.8%,假阴性率(FNR)为 22.2%,阴性预测值为 96.6%。在低风险和中风险亚型中,前哨淋巴结 mapping 以及算法均识别出所有淋巴结阳性患者,但在高风险子宫内膜癌中,与前哨淋巴结 mapping 算法 100%的敏感性相比,单独的前哨淋巴结 mapping 技术敏感性为 57.1%,假阴性率为 42.9%。
在子宫内膜癌分期手术中进行前哨淋巴结 mapping 和活检时,必须遵循前哨淋巴结 mapping 算法中提到的步骤,因为单独的前哨淋巴结 mapping 在检测阳性淋巴结方面似乎存在局限性,尤其是在子宫内膜癌的高风险亚型中。即使缺乏生存数据,基于前哨淋巴结 mapping 手术算法的性能(即使没有超分期设备),它似乎是检测转移淋巴结、提供预后信息和实现准确辅助治疗的更好技术。