Cargando…

Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is an attractive technique that is widely performed in many oncological surgeries. However, the potential risks in SLN biopsy for cervical cancer remains largely unclear. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with histologically confirmed cervical cancer were en...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tu, Hua, Wan, Ting, Zhang, Xinke, Gu, Haifeng, Feng, Yanling, Huang, He, Liu, Jihong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32552905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01905-9
_version_ 1783548195698114560
author Tu, Hua
Wan, Ting
Zhang, Xinke
Gu, Haifeng
Feng, Yanling
Huang, He
Liu, Jihong
author_facet Tu, Hua
Wan, Ting
Zhang, Xinke
Gu, Haifeng
Feng, Yanling
Huang, He
Liu, Jihong
author_sort Tu, Hua
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is an attractive technique that is widely performed in many oncological surgeries. However, the potential risks in SLN biopsy for cervical cancer remains largely unclear. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with histologically confirmed cervical cancer were enrolled between May 2014 and June 2016. SLN biopsies were performed followed by pelvic lymphadenectomies and all resected nodes were labeled according to their anatomic areas. Only bilateral detections of SLNs were considered successful. Patients’ clinicopathologic feature, performance of SLN detection, and distributions of lymph node metastases were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 75 enrolled patients, at least one SLN was detected in 69 (92.0%), including 33 in bilateral and 36 in unilateral. SLNs were most detected in the obturator area (52 of 69 patients, 75.4%) and 26 (37.7%) patients presented SLNs in more than one area of hemipelvis. Lymphovascular invasion was found to be the only factor that adversely influenced SLN detection, while the tumor diameter, growth type, histological grade, deep stromal invasion, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed no significant impacts. Patients with lymphovascular invasion showed a significantly higher rate to have unsuccessful detection (90.9% versus 41.5%, P < 0.001) and lymph node metastasis (40.9% versus 3.8%, P < 0.001) compared with those without. Nodal metastases were confirmed in 11 patients, of whom 9 (81.8%) had lymphovascular invasion and 7 (63.6%) had non-SLN metastasis. The most frequently involved SLNs were obturator nodes (9/11, 81.8%). In addition, the parametrial nodes also have a high rate to be positive (4/11, 36.4%), although they were relatively less identified as SLNs. Besides, 3 patients showed metastases in the laterals without SLN detected. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer, lymphovascular invasion is a significant factor for unsuccessful SLN detection. The risk of having undetected metastasis is high when SLN is positive; therefore, further lymphadenectomy may be necessary for these patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7304089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73040892020-06-22 Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study Tu, Hua Wan, Ting Zhang, Xinke Gu, Haifeng Feng, Yanling Huang, He Liu, Jihong World J Surg Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is an attractive technique that is widely performed in many oncological surgeries. However, the potential risks in SLN biopsy for cervical cancer remains largely unclear. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with histologically confirmed cervical cancer were enrolled between May 2014 and June 2016. SLN biopsies were performed followed by pelvic lymphadenectomies and all resected nodes were labeled according to their anatomic areas. Only bilateral detections of SLNs were considered successful. Patients’ clinicopathologic feature, performance of SLN detection, and distributions of lymph node metastases were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 75 enrolled patients, at least one SLN was detected in 69 (92.0%), including 33 in bilateral and 36 in unilateral. SLNs were most detected in the obturator area (52 of 69 patients, 75.4%) and 26 (37.7%) patients presented SLNs in more than one area of hemipelvis. Lymphovascular invasion was found to be the only factor that adversely influenced SLN detection, while the tumor diameter, growth type, histological grade, deep stromal invasion, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed no significant impacts. Patients with lymphovascular invasion showed a significantly higher rate to have unsuccessful detection (90.9% versus 41.5%, P < 0.001) and lymph node metastasis (40.9% versus 3.8%, P < 0.001) compared with those without. Nodal metastases were confirmed in 11 patients, of whom 9 (81.8%) had lymphovascular invasion and 7 (63.6%) had non-SLN metastasis. The most frequently involved SLNs were obturator nodes (9/11, 81.8%). In addition, the parametrial nodes also have a high rate to be positive (4/11, 36.4%), although they were relatively less identified as SLNs. Besides, 3 patients showed metastases in the laterals without SLN detected. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer, lymphovascular invasion is a significant factor for unsuccessful SLN detection. The risk of having undetected metastasis is high when SLN is positive; therefore, further lymphadenectomy may be necessary for these patients. BioMed Central 2020-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7304089/ /pubmed/32552905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01905-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Tu, Hua
Wan, Ting
Zhang, Xinke
Gu, Haifeng
Feng, Yanling
Huang, He
Liu, Jihong
Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title_full Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title_fullStr Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title_short Potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
title_sort potential risks in sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a single-institution pilot study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32552905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01905-9
work_keys_str_mv AT tuhua potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT wanting potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT zhangxinke potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT guhaifeng potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT fengyanling potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT huanghe potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy
AT liujihong potentialrisksinsentinellymphnodebiopsyforcervicalcancerasingleinstitutionpilotstudy