Transperitoneal vs extraperitoneal approach for aortic sentinel node detection in endometrial cancer.
endometrial neoplasms
laparoscopies
lymphatic system
operative
sentinel lymph node
surgical procedures
Journal
AJOG global reports
ISSN: 2666-5778
Titre abrégé: AJOG Glob Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101777907
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
entrez:
17
11
2022
pubmed:
18
11
2022
medline:
18
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the sentinel lymph node technique in endometrial cancer is currently replacing pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy for the evaluation of lymph node status in endometrial cancer, its performance is not yet standardized. This study aimed to describe the detection rates and locations of aortic sentinel lymph node detection after dual cervical and fundal indocyanine green injection in patients with endometrial cancer, using the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches. Between June 26, 2014 and December 31, 2019, 278 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer at our institution. In all cases, we performed sentinel lymph node biopsy with dual cervical and fundal indocyanine green injection, and back-up lymphadenectomy in high-risk cases. A post hoc analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach to aortic sentinel lymph nodes. The detection rates were as follows: overall detection rate: 93.2% (259/278); pelvic detection rate: 90.3% (251/278); bilateral pelvic detection rate: 68.0% (189/278); aortic detection rate: 66.9% (186/278); and isolated aortic detection rate: 2.88% (8/278). Transperitoneal and extraperitoneal aortic detection rates were similar (65.0% and 69.6%, respectively), with no significant differences ( The detection rates at the aortic level were similar between the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches, with no impact on subsequent pelvic detection. The transperitoneal approach detected more laterocaval, precaval, and interaortocaval nodes, whereas the extraperitoneal approach detected more preaortic and left lateroaortic nodes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although the sentinel lymph node technique in endometrial cancer is currently replacing pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy for the evaluation of lymph node status in endometrial cancer, its performance is not yet standardized.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to describe the detection rates and locations of aortic sentinel lymph node detection after dual cervical and fundal indocyanine green injection in patients with endometrial cancer, using the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Between June 26, 2014 and December 31, 2019, 278 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer at our institution. In all cases, we performed sentinel lymph node biopsy with dual cervical and fundal indocyanine green injection, and back-up lymphadenectomy in high-risk cases. A post hoc analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach to aortic sentinel lymph nodes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The detection rates were as follows: overall detection rate: 93.2% (259/278); pelvic detection rate: 90.3% (251/278); bilateral pelvic detection rate: 68.0% (189/278); aortic detection rate: 66.9% (186/278); and isolated aortic detection rate: 2.88% (8/278). Transperitoneal and extraperitoneal aortic detection rates were similar (65.0% and 69.6%, respectively), with no significant differences (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The detection rates at the aortic level were similar between the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches, with no impact on subsequent pelvic detection. The transperitoneal approach detected more laterocaval, precaval, and interaortocaval nodes, whereas the extraperitoneal approach detected more preaortic and left lateroaortic nodes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36387296
doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100120
pii: S2666-5778(22)00069-7
pmc: PMC9646988
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100120Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jan;160(1):83-90
pubmed: 33160695
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):2-30
pubmed: 26645990
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):234-239
pubmed: 28528918
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):325-331
pubmed: 32029429
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):366-71
pubmed: 24361579
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8
pubmed: 18304622
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):459-476.e10
pubmed: 27871836
Lancet Oncol. 2017 May;18(5):e235
pubmed: 28495281
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020 Jun 13;12:1758835920933036
pubmed: 32587635
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jul;116:77-85
pubmed: 31181536
JAMA Surg. 2021 Feb 1;156(2):157-164
pubmed: 33175109
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):339-345
pubmed: 32075897
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;27(3):514-519
pubmed: 30217312
Lancet Oncol. 2011 May;12(5):469-76
pubmed: 21489874
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 May;145(2):256-261
pubmed: 28196672
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jan;28(1):139-144
pubmed: 29194192
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Nov;139(2):330-7
pubmed: 26407477
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:37-50
pubmed: 30306580
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-392
pubmed: 28159465
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):405-415
pubmed: 28566221
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39
pubmed: 33397713
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;23(9):2966-74
pubmed: 27098143