Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Characteristics of studies evaluating SLN in EC, grouped according to the injection site

From: Sentinel lymph node in endometrial cancer: an overview

Authors, year Injection site Study type N FIGO staginga (%) Method Surgical route PA nodes Median N lymph nodes Bilateral SLN detection (%) Detection rate (%) Sensibility (%) NPV FN rate (%) Pathology assessment
Pericervical/cervical injection or combined/comparison with cervical injection
How et al. [28], 2012 PC Pros 100 I-86.0; II-1.0; III-13.0 B + Tc 99 Rob HR 2 72 92 89 99 1 HE/IHC
Barlin et al. [14], 2012 PC PC + SS (34) Pros 498 I-79.0, I-2.0 B Rob/Lap/Lapar Yes 3.0 51 81 98.1 99.8 1.9 HE/IHC
III-17.0, IV-2.0 B + Tc 99 (75)
Holloway et al. [7], 2012 PC Pros 35 NA F + C Rob Yes At least 1 100 100 90 96 NA HE/IHC
C 77
F 97
Ballester et al. [9], 2011 PC Pros 125 I-94.0 II-6.0 B + Tc 99 Lap/Lapar No 1.5 69 89 84 97 16 HE/IHC
Khoury-Collado et al. [13], 2011 PC Pros 266 I-78.0, II-2.0, III-19.0, IV-1.0 B Lap/Lapar/Rob No 3.0 67 84 NA NA NA HE/IHC
PC + SS B + Tc 99
Mais et al. [5], 2010 PC Pros 34 I-91.2, II-2.9, III-5.9 B Lap No 1–4 NA 62 100 NA 50 HE/IHC
82
Lapar 42
Abu-Rustum et al. [34], 2009 PC PC + SS Pros 21 21 I-84.0, II-2.0, III-14.0, IV-2.0 B + Tc 99 Lap/Lapar Yes 3 NA 86 100 100 0 HE/IHC
81
90
Barranger et al. [35], 2009 PC Pros 33 I-90.9, II-9.1 B + Tc 99 Lap No 2.5 54.5 81.8 NA NA 0 HE/IHC
Ballester et al. [21], 2008 PC Pros 46 NA B + Tc 99 Lap/Lapar No 2.6 62.5 87 100 NA 0 HE/IHC
Bats et al. [29], 2008 PC Pros 43 I-60.5, II-14.0, III-25.5 B + Tc 99 Lap/Lapar No 2.9 53.3 69.8 100 NA 0 HE/IHC
Perone et al. [9], 2008 PC Pros 23 NA Tc 99 Lap No 1.7 38 70 100 100 0 HE/IHC
HYS 17 1.4 27 65
Holub et al. [27], 2004 PC + SS NA 25 I B Lap NA 2.1 81 84 100 100 0 HE
Peri-tumoral: hysteroscopic or intra-myometrial guided transvaginal ultrasound injection
Torné et al. [23], 2012 IM Pros 74 I-66.1, II-21.6, III-10.9, IV-1.4 Tc 99 Lap Yes 2.8 29.2 82.1 92.3 97.7 NA HE/IHC
Solima et al. [18], 2012 HYS Pros 59 I-72.9, II-5.1, III-20.3, IV-1.7 Tc 99 Lapar/Lap HR 2.6 NA 95 90 98 1.7 IHC
Delaloye et al.[36], 2007 HYS Pros 60 I-64.0, II-11.0, III-25.0 B + Tc 99 Lapar/Lap Yes 3.7 44.8 82 89 97 11 HE/IHC
Maccauro et al. [25], 2005 HYS Unk 26 I-83.0, III-27.0 B + Tc 99 Lapar No 2.5 18 100 100 100 0 HE/IHC
Raspagliesi et al. [26], 2004 HYS Pros 18 I-72.2, III-27.8 B + Tc 99 Lapar HR 3 55.6 94 NA NA 0 HE
Niikura et al. [32], 2004 HYS Pros 28 I-78.6, II-10.7, III-10.7 Tc 99 Lapar Yes 3.1 NA 82 100 100 0 HE/IHC
Subserosal or comparison with subserosal injection
Robova et al. [33], 2009 SS HYS Pros 67 24 I-83.5, II-11.0, III-5.5 B + Tc 99 Lapar Yes 2.2 67.2 73.1 74 NA NA NA NA IHC
50 50
Lopes et al. [11], 2007 SS Pros 40 NA B Lapar Yes NA NA 77.5 83 98 4 HE/ICH
Altgassen et al. [22], 2007 SS NA 23 I-64.0, II-36.0 B Lapar Yes 3 NA 92 62.5 92.5 5 HE/IHC
Burke et al. [6], 1996 SS Unk 15 NA HR B Lapar Yes 3.1 NA 67 67 NA 33 H
Combined
Kang et al. [16], 2011 PC HYS SS PC + SS Other Meta-analysis 1101 NA B Tc 99 B + Tc 99 Lap/Lapar NA 2.6 61 78 93 NA NA NA
  1. Blue D B Blue dye, C Colorimetric, F Fluorescence Indo Cyanine Green, HR high-risk endometrial cancer, HYS hysteroscopy, IM intra-myometrial guided transvaginal ultrasound, Lap laparoscopy, Lapar laparotomy, N number of cases, NA not available/applicable, NPV negative predictive value, PC pericervical/cervical, Pros prospective, Rob robotic assisted laparoscopy, SS subserosal, Unk unknown
  2. aFIGO Staging 1998, except for Torné et al. (FIGO 2009 staging)