Comparison of tracer application methods for sentinel lymph node detection in open surgery patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Borek Sehnal, Petr Waldauf, Radoslav Matej, Martin Hruda, Helena Robova, Jana Drozenova, Tomas Pichlik, Jan Zapletal, Lukas Rob, Michael J Halaska
{"title":"Comparison of tracer application methods for sentinel lymph node detection in open surgery patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Borek Sehnal, Petr Waldauf, Radoslav Matej, Martin Hruda, Helena Robova, Jana Drozenova, Tomas Pichlik, Jan Zapletal, Lukas Rob, Michael J Halaska","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-14037-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"638"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14037-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Results: Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.

Conclusions: The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.

Trial registration: Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.

Registration number: EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

子宫内膜癌开放性手术患者前哨淋巴结检测的示踪剂应用方法比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:本研究旨在评估不同示踪剂应用技术在剖腹手术子宫内膜癌患者前哨淋巴结(SLN)检测中的有效性。此外,对SLN检测失败的潜在危险因素进行了评估。方法:我们回顾性分析了248例在2020年1月至2024年3月期间接受腹部手术并进行SLN定位的子宫内膜癌患者的数据。使用连续变量的Wilcoxon秩和检验和分类变量的Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行统计分析,显著性水平设置为p。结果:I + S组包括147名宫颈内和浆膜下示踪剂应用的妇女,I + I组包括101名宫颈内和基底内应用的妇女。两侧SLN的检出率分别为39.9% (99/248),I + S组为38.1% (56/147),I + I组为42.6%(43/101)。在所有患者中,仅一侧骨盆有32.7%(81/248)的sln, I + S组有31.3% (46/147),I + I组有34.7%(35/101)。27.4%(68/248)的受试者未检出sln,其中I + S组30.6% (45/147),I + I组22.8%(23/101)。尽管无论何种检测方法,I + I组和骨盆右侧SLN的检测成功率均较高,但差异无统计学意义。年龄超过66.3岁被认为是成功检测的关键危险因素,其他后续因素对总体检测成功率没有统计学显著影响。确定了其他重要的危险因素:右侧肿瘤肌层浸润深度、盆腔手术史和左侧肿瘤总体积。结论:本研究未发现在经开放手术治疗的子宫内膜癌患者中,宫颈内+基底内和宫颈内+浆膜下示踪剂应用组在SLN定位成功率方面存在显著差异。总体而言,年龄是SLN检测失败的最关键风险因素,而其他评估因素对总体检测成功没有统计学上的显着影响。试验注册:机构大学医院Královské Vinohrady,布拉格,捷克共和国。注册号:EK-VP-21-0-2023。注册日期2023年6月7日。这项研究是按照《赫尔辛基宣言》回顾性登记的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信