Critical view of safety assessment in sentinel node dissection for endometrial and cervical cancer: artificial intelligence to enhance surgical safety and lymph node detection (LYSE study).

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Matteo Pavone, Britty Baby, Emma Carles, Chiara Innocenzi, Alessandro Baroni, Lorenzo Arboit, Aditya Murali, Andrea Rosati, Valentina Iacobelli, Anna Fagotti, Francesco Fanfani, Cherif Akladios, Denis Querleu, Nicolò Bizzarri, Lise Lecointre, Pietro Mascagni, Nicolas Padoy, Giovanni Scambia
{"title":"Critical view of safety assessment in sentinel node dissection for endometrial and cervical cancer: artificial intelligence to enhance surgical safety and lymph node detection (LYSE study).","authors":"Matteo Pavone, Britty Baby, Emma Carles, Chiara Innocenzi, Alessandro Baroni, Lorenzo Arboit, Aditya Murali, Andrea Rosati, Valentina Iacobelli, Anna Fagotti, Francesco Fanfani, Cherif Akladios, Denis Querleu, Nicolò Bizzarri, Lise Lecointre, Pietro Mascagni, Nicolas Padoy, Giovanni Scambia","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of video-based assessment rate of Critical Views of Safety criteria for sentinel lymph node dissection in endometrial and cervical cancer. Goal of these Critical Views of Safety is to help standardize the evaluation of surgical quality, improve the precision of sentinel lymph node identification, and lead to better patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This international multi-center observational prospective study was conducted from April to September 2024. Surgical videos from patients with cervical and endometrial carcinoma undergoing minimally invasive sentinel lymph node dissection were collected. A total of 3 Critical Views of Safety criteria (lateral pararectal space, lateral paravesical space, internal iliac artery) were proposed based on the anatomical structures defined as mandatory to be identified before sentinel node dissection, according to previously published expert consensus. A total of 3 independent surgeons, blinded to each other's assessments, evaluated whether the proposed criteria were identifiable in the endoscopic surgical video to establish applicability (content validity) and inter-rater agreement (reliability).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 patients were enrolled, of these, 71 cases (88.8%) had videos suitable for annotation, 64 (90.1%) underwent sentinel lymph node dissection for endometrial cancer, and 7 (9.9%) for cervical cancer; the median age was 52 years (IQR 34-71) and median body mass index was 28.8 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (IQR 23.7-32.17). The lateral pararectal space was identified in 62% of videos, the lateral paravesical space in 94%, and the internal iliac artery in the 32%. Inter-rater reliability was high for the lateral pararectal and paravesical spaces (Fleiss κ of 0.90) and moderate for the internal iliac artery (Fleiss κ of 0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The low assessment rate of the internal iliac artery criteria should raise concerns about missing sentinel lymph nodes in the internal iliac and pre-sacral area. The assessment of such standardized safety criteria could potentially standardize the procedures, thereby improving adherence to guidelines. The introduction of the video assessment of these criteria lays the foundation for exploring the feasibility of artificial intelligence algorithms to automatically assess and document the Critical Views of Safety in surgical videos.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":"35 5","pages":"101789"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101789","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of video-based assessment rate of Critical Views of Safety criteria for sentinel lymph node dissection in endometrial and cervical cancer. Goal of these Critical Views of Safety is to help standardize the evaluation of surgical quality, improve the precision of sentinel lymph node identification, and lead to better patient outcomes.

Methods: This international multi-center observational prospective study was conducted from April to September 2024. Surgical videos from patients with cervical and endometrial carcinoma undergoing minimally invasive sentinel lymph node dissection were collected. A total of 3 Critical Views of Safety criteria (lateral pararectal space, lateral paravesical space, internal iliac artery) were proposed based on the anatomical structures defined as mandatory to be identified before sentinel node dissection, according to previously published expert consensus. A total of 3 independent surgeons, blinded to each other's assessments, evaluated whether the proposed criteria were identifiable in the endoscopic surgical video to establish applicability (content validity) and inter-rater agreement (reliability).

Results: A total of 80 patients were enrolled, of these, 71 cases (88.8%) had videos suitable for annotation, 64 (90.1%) underwent sentinel lymph node dissection for endometrial cancer, and 7 (9.9%) for cervical cancer; the median age was 52 years (IQR 34-71) and median body mass index was 28.8 kg/m2 (IQR 23.7-32.17). The lateral pararectal space was identified in 62% of videos, the lateral paravesical space in 94%, and the internal iliac artery in the 32%. Inter-rater reliability was high for the lateral pararectal and paravesical spaces (Fleiss κ of 0.90) and moderate for the internal iliac artery (Fleiss κ of 0.73).

Conclusions: The low assessment rate of the internal iliac artery criteria should raise concerns about missing sentinel lymph nodes in the internal iliac and pre-sacral area. The assessment of such standardized safety criteria could potentially standardize the procedures, thereby improving adherence to guidelines. The introduction of the video assessment of these criteria lays the foundation for exploring the feasibility of artificial intelligence algorithms to automatically assess and document the Critical Views of Safety in surgical videos.

子宫内膜癌和宫颈癌前哨淋巴结清扫术安全性评估的关键观点:人工智能提高手术安全性和淋巴结检测(LYSE研究)。
目的:探讨基于视频的子宫内膜癌和宫颈癌前哨淋巴结清扫安全标准评价率的可行性。这些安全关键观点的目的是帮助标准化手术质量评估,提高前哨淋巴结识别的准确性,并导致更好的患者预后。方法:本研究于2024年4月至9月进行国际多中心观察性前瞻性研究。我们收集了宫颈和子宫内膜癌患者行微创前哨淋巴结清扫术的手术录像。根据先前发表的专家共识,根据前哨淋巴结清扫前必须确定的解剖结构,共提出了3个安全标准的关键观点(直肠旁外侧间隙、膀胱旁外侧间隙、髂内动脉)。共有3名独立的外科医生,对彼此的评估不知情,评估所提出的标准是否在内镜手术视频中可识别,以建立适用性(内容效度)和评分者之间的一致性(可靠性)。结果:共纳入80例患者,其中71例(88.8%)有适合注释的视频,64例(90.1%)子宫内膜癌行前哨淋巴结清扫,7例(9.9%)宫颈癌行前哨淋巴结清扫;中位年龄52岁(IQR 34 ~ 71),中位体重指数28.8 kg/m2 (IQR 23.7 ~ 32.17)。62%的视频显示直肠旁外侧间隙,94%的视频显示膀胱旁外侧间隙,32%的视频显示髂内动脉。直肠旁和膀胱旁侧间隙的评分信度较高(Fleiss κ为0.90),髂内动脉的评分信度中等(Fleiss κ为0.73)。结论:髂内动脉标准的低评估率应引起对髂内及骶前区前哨淋巴结缺失的关注。对这种标准化安全标准的评估有可能使程序标准化,从而改进对准则的遵守。这些标准的视频评估的引入为探索人工智能算法在手术视频中自动评估和记录安全关键观点的可行性奠定了基础。
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
×
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