Cargando…
Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers
BACKGROUND: Lymph node status is an important prognostic factor and a criterion for adjuvant therapy in uterine cancers. While detection of micrometastases by ultrastaging techniques is correlated to prognosis in several other cancers, this remains a matter of debate for uterine cancers. The objecti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828991/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20092644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-29-5 |
_version_ | 1782178054290800640 |
---|---|
author | Bézu, Corinne Coutant, Charles Ballester, Marcos Feron, Jean-Guillaume Rouzier, Roman Uzan, Serge Daraï, Emile |
author_facet | Bézu, Corinne Coutant, Charles Ballester, Marcos Feron, Jean-Guillaume Rouzier, Roman Uzan, Serge Daraï, Emile |
author_sort | Bézu, Corinne |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Lymph node status is an important prognostic factor and a criterion for adjuvant therapy in uterine cancers. While detection of micrometastases by ultrastaging techniques is correlated to prognosis in several other cancers, this remains a matter of debate for uterine cancers. The objective of this review on sentinel nodes (SN) in uterine cancers was to determine the contribution of ultrastaging to detect micrometastases. METHODS: Review of the English literature on SN procedure in cervical and endometrial cancers and histological techniques including hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, serial sectioning, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular techniques to detect micrometastases. RESULTS: In both cervical and endometrial cancers, H&E and IHC appeared insufficient to detect micrometastases. In cervical cancer, using H&E, serial sectioning and IHC, the rate of macrometastases varied between 7.1% and 36.3% with a mean value of 25.8%. The percentage of women with micrometastases ranged from 0% and 47.4% with a mean value of 28.3%. In endometrial cancer, the rate of macrometastases varied from 0% to 22%. Using H&E, serial sectioning and IHC, the rate of micrometastases varied from 0% to 15% with a mean value of 5.8%. In both cervical and endometrial cancers, data on the contribution of molecular techniques to detect micrometastases are insufficient to clarify their role in SN ultrastaging. CONCLUSION: In uterine cancers, H&E, serial sectioning and IHC appears the best histological combined technique to detect micrometastases. Although accumulating data have proved the relation between the risk of recurrence and the presence of micrometastases, their clinical implications on indications for adjuvant therapy has to be clarified. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2828991 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28289912010-02-26 Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers Bézu, Corinne Coutant, Charles Ballester, Marcos Feron, Jean-Guillaume Rouzier, Roman Uzan, Serge Daraï, Emile J Exp Clin Cancer Res Review BACKGROUND: Lymph node status is an important prognostic factor and a criterion for adjuvant therapy in uterine cancers. While detection of micrometastases by ultrastaging techniques is correlated to prognosis in several other cancers, this remains a matter of debate for uterine cancers. The objective of this review on sentinel nodes (SN) in uterine cancers was to determine the contribution of ultrastaging to detect micrometastases. METHODS: Review of the English literature on SN procedure in cervical and endometrial cancers and histological techniques including hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, serial sectioning, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular techniques to detect micrometastases. RESULTS: In both cervical and endometrial cancers, H&E and IHC appeared insufficient to detect micrometastases. In cervical cancer, using H&E, serial sectioning and IHC, the rate of macrometastases varied between 7.1% and 36.3% with a mean value of 25.8%. The percentage of women with micrometastases ranged from 0% and 47.4% with a mean value of 28.3%. In endometrial cancer, the rate of macrometastases varied from 0% to 22%. Using H&E, serial sectioning and IHC, the rate of micrometastases varied from 0% to 15% with a mean value of 5.8%. In both cervical and endometrial cancers, data on the contribution of molecular techniques to detect micrometastases are insufficient to clarify their role in SN ultrastaging. CONCLUSION: In uterine cancers, H&E, serial sectioning and IHC appears the best histological combined technique to detect micrometastases. Although accumulating data have proved the relation between the risk of recurrence and the presence of micrometastases, their clinical implications on indications for adjuvant therapy has to be clarified. BioMed Central 2010-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC2828991/ /pubmed/20092644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-29-5 Text en Copyright ©2010 Bézu 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 | Review Bézu, Corinne Coutant, Charles Ballester, Marcos Feron, Jean-Guillaume Rouzier, Roman Uzan, Serge Daraï, Emile Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title | Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title_full | Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title_fullStr | Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title_short | Ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
title_sort | ultrastaging of lymph node in uterine cancers |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828991/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20092644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-29-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bezucorinne ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT coutantcharles ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT ballestermarcos ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT feronjeanguillaume ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT rouzierroman ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT uzanserge ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers AT daraiemile ultrastagingoflymphnodeinuterinecancers |