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 |