Gu Yu, Cheng Hongyan, Zong Liju, Kong Yujia, Xiang Yang
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Front Oncol. 2021 Jan 13;10:580128. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.580128. eCollection 2020.
To evaluate the utility of sentinel lymph node mapping (SLN) in endometrial cancer (EC) patients in comparison with lymphadenectomy (LND).
Comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, OVID, Web of science databases, and three clinical trials registration websites, from the database inception to September 2020. The primary outcomes covered operative outcomes, nodal assessment, and oncological outcomes. Software Revman 5.3 was used. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) were performed.
Overall, 5,820 EC patients from 15 studies were pooled in the meta-analysis: SLN group (N = 2,152, 37.0%), LND group (N = 3,668, 63.0%). In meta-analysis of blood loss, SLN offered advantage over LND in reducing operation bleeding (I = 74%, P<0.01). Z-curve of blood loss crossed trial sequential monitoring boundaries though did not reach TSA sample size. There was no difference between SLN and LND in intra-operative complications (I = 7%, P = 0.12). SLN was superior to LND in detecting positive pelvic nodes (P-LN) (I = 36%, P<0.001), even in high risk patients (I = 36%, P = 0.001). While no difference was observed in detection of positive para-aortic nodes (PA-LN) (I = 47%, P = 0.76), even in high risk patients (I = 62%, P = 0.34). Analysis showed no difference between two groups in the number of resected pelvic nodes (I = 99%, P = 0.26). SLN was not associated with a statistically significant overall survival (I = 79%, P = 0.94). There was no difference in progression-free survival between SLN and LND (I = 52%, P = 0.31). No difference was observed in recurrence. Based on the GRADE assessment, we considered the quality of current evidence to be moderate for P-LN biopsy, low for items like blood loss, PA-LN positive.
The present meta-analysis underlines that SLN is capable of reducing blood loss during operation in regardless of surgical approach with firm evidence from TSA. SLN mapping is more targeted for less node dissection and more detection of positive lymph nodes even in high risk patients with conclusive evidence from TSA. Utility of SLN yields no survival detriment in EC patients.
与淋巴结切除术(LND)相比,评估前哨淋巴结定位(SLN)在子宫内膜癌(EC)患者中的应用价值。
从数据库建立至2020年9月,在MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、OVID、科学网数据库以及三个临床试验注册网站进行全面检索。主要结局包括手术结局、淋巴结评估和肿瘤学结局。使用Revman 5.3软件。进行了试验序贯分析(TSA)和推荐分级评估、制定与评价(GRADE)。
总体而言,15项研究中的5820例EC患者被纳入荟萃分析:SLN组(N = 2152,37.0%),LND组(N = 3668,63.0%)。在失血的荟萃分析中,SLN在减少手术出血方面优于LND(I² = 74%,P<0.01)。失血的Z曲线越过了试验序贯监测边界,但未达到TSA样本量。SLN和LND在术中并发症方面无差异(I² = 7%,P = 0.12)。SLN在检测盆腔阳性淋巴结(P-LN)方面优于LND(I² = 36%,P<0.001),即使在高危患者中也是如此(I² = 36%,P = 0.001)。而在检测腹主动脉旁阳性淋巴结(PA-LN)方面未观察到差异(I² = 47%,P = 0.76),即使在高危患者中也是如此(I² = 62%,P = 0.34)。分析显示两组在切除的盆腔淋巴结数量上无差异(I² = 99%,P = 0.26)。SLN与总体生存率无统计学显著相关性(I² = 79%,P = 0.94)。SLN和LND在无进展生存期方面无差异(I² = 52%,P = 0.31)。在复发方面未观察到差异。基于GRADE评估,我们认为目前关于P-LN活检的证据质量为中等,关于失血及PA-LN阳性等项目的证据质量为低等。
本荟萃分析强调,无论手术方式如何,SLN都能减少手术中的失血,TSA提供了确凿证据。SLN定位更具针对性,可减少淋巴结清扫,即使在高危患者中也能更多地检测到阳性淋巴结,TSA提供了确凿证据。SLN的应用对EC患者的生存无不利影响。