Cargando…

A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND: The lymph node status of a patient is a key determinate in staging, prognosis and adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer. Despite this, the potential additional morbidity associated with lymphadenectomy makes its role controversial. This study systematically reviews the accuracy litera...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Selman, Tara J, Mann, Christopher H, Zamora, Javier, Khan, Khalid S
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-8-8
_version_ 1782155743747637248
author Selman, Tara J
Mann, Christopher H
Zamora, Javier
Khan, Khalid S
author_facet Selman, Tara J
Mann, Christopher H
Zamora, Javier
Khan, Khalid S
author_sort Selman, Tara J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The lymph node status of a patient is a key determinate in staging, prognosis and adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer. Despite this, the potential additional morbidity associated with lymphadenectomy makes its role controversial. This study systematically reviews the accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy; ultra sound scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computer tomography (CT) for determining lymph node status in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified form MEDLINE (1966–2006), EMBASE (1980–2006), MEDION, the Cochrane library, hand searching of reference lists from primary articles and reviews, conference abstracts and contact with experts in the field. The review included 18 relevant primary studies (693 women). Data was extracted for study characteristics and quality. Bivariate random-effect model meta-analysis was used to estimate diagnostic accuracy of the various index tests. RESULTS: MRI (pooled positive LR 26.7, 95% CI 10.6 – 67.6 and negative LR 0.29 95% CI 0.17 – 0.49) and successful sentinel node biopsy (pooled positive LR 18.9 95% CI 6.7 – 53.2 and negative LR 0.22, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.48) were the most accurate tests. CT was not as accurate a test (pooled positive LR 3.8, 95% CI 2.0 – 7.3 and negative LR of 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 – 0.86. There was only one study that reported the use of ultrasound scanning. CONCLUSION: MRI and sentinel node biopsy have shown similar diagnostic accuracy in confirming lymph node status among women with primary endometrial cancer than CT scanning, although the comparisons made are indirect and hence subject to bias. MRI should be used in preference, in light of the ASTEC trial, because of its non invasive nature.
format Text
id pubmed-2409306
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-24093062008-06-04 A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer Selman, Tara J Mann, Christopher H Zamora, Javier Khan, Khalid S BMC Womens Health Research Article BACKGROUND: The lymph node status of a patient is a key determinate in staging, prognosis and adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer. Despite this, the potential additional morbidity associated with lymphadenectomy makes its role controversial. This study systematically reviews the accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy; ultra sound scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computer tomography (CT) for determining lymph node status in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified form MEDLINE (1966–2006), EMBASE (1980–2006), MEDION, the Cochrane library, hand searching of reference lists from primary articles and reviews, conference abstracts and contact with experts in the field. The review included 18 relevant primary studies (693 women). Data was extracted for study characteristics and quality. Bivariate random-effect model meta-analysis was used to estimate diagnostic accuracy of the various index tests. RESULTS: MRI (pooled positive LR 26.7, 95% CI 10.6 – 67.6 and negative LR 0.29 95% CI 0.17 – 0.49) and successful sentinel node biopsy (pooled positive LR 18.9 95% CI 6.7 – 53.2 and negative LR 0.22, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.48) were the most accurate tests. CT was not as accurate a test (pooled positive LR 3.8, 95% CI 2.0 – 7.3 and negative LR of 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 – 0.86. There was only one study that reported the use of ultrasound scanning. CONCLUSION: MRI and sentinel node biopsy have shown similar diagnostic accuracy in confirming lymph node status among women with primary endometrial cancer than CT scanning, although the comparisons made are indirect and hence subject to bias. MRI should be used in preference, in light of the ASTEC trial, because of its non invasive nature. BioMed Central 2008-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2409306/ /pubmed/18457596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-8-8 Text en Copyright © 2008 Selman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Selman, Tara J
Mann, Christopher H
Zamora, Javier
Khan, Khalid S
A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title_full A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title_fullStr A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title_short A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
title_sort systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-8-8
work_keys_str_mv AT selmantaraj asystematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT mannchristopherh asystematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT zamorajavier asystematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT khankhalids asystematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT selmantaraj systematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT mannchristopherh systematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT zamorajavier systematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer
AT khankhalids systematicreviewoftestsforlymphnodestatusinprimaryendometrialcancer