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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bézu, Corinne, Coutant, Charles, Ballester, Marcos, Feron, Jean-Guillaume, Rouzier, Roman, Uzan, Serge, Daraï, Emile
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