Oncologic outcomes of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with high-intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Jacqueline Nunes de Menezes, Daniel Mioto Mataruco, Raíssa Êmily Andrade Souza, Gabriela Branquinho Guerra, Beatriz Pâmella Costa Bomfim, Isadora da Silveira, Ana Thereza da Cunha Uchoa, Glauco Baiocchi, Pedro T Ramirez
{"title":"Oncologic outcomes of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with high-intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jacqueline Nunes de Menezes, Daniel Mioto Mataruco, Raíssa Êmily Andrade Souza, Gabriela Branquinho Guerra, Beatriz Pâmella Costa Bomfim, Isadora da Silveira, Ana Thereza da Cunha Uchoa, Glauco Baiocchi, Pedro T Ramirez","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has not been widely adapted in the setting of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. The goal of this study was to determine oncologic outcomes in this high-intermediate or high-risk population undergoing SLN mapping compared with systematic pelvic ± para-aortic lymphadenectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials comparing SLN with lymphadenectomy for patients with high- or high-intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Studies were excluded if they lacked a control group, involved overlapping populations, were only available as abstracts, or were not in English. The main outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, recurrence, and adjuvant therapy rates. A pre-specified sub-group analysis was carried out that included high-risk patients, high-intermediate-risk patients, and only propensity score-matched studies. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio Version 4.4.0. Heterogeneity was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 observational studies (2 with population data from the National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI and the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results - SEER databases) were included, evaluating a total of 6127 patients. There were no randomized control trials. There were no differences regarding overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, p = .19, I<sup>2</sup> = 36%) or disease-free survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.08, p = .19, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) between SLN mapping and lymphadenectomy. Recurrence rates (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06, p = .12, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and adjuvant therapy (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.48, p = .26, I<sup>2</sup> = 85%) were also similar between the groups. In a sub-group analysis including only the high-risk population, a statistically significant difference in overall survival favored SLN mapping compared with the lymphadenectomy (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89, p < .01, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Similarly, the analysis of propensity score-matched studies showed better overall survival in the SLN cohort (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p < .01, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SLN mapping is associated with similar oncologic outcomes to lymphadenectomy in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Routine lymphadenectomy should no longer be considered a standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":"35 7","pages":"101901"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","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.2025.101901","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has not been widely adapted in the setting of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. The goal of this study was to determine oncologic outcomes in this high-intermediate or high-risk population undergoing SLN mapping compared with systematic pelvic ± para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials comparing SLN with lymphadenectomy for patients with high- or high-intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Studies were excluded if they lacked a control group, involved overlapping populations, were only available as abstracts, or were not in English. The main outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, recurrence, and adjuvant therapy rates. A pre-specified sub-group analysis was carried out that included high-risk patients, high-intermediate-risk patients, and only propensity score-matched studies. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio Version 4.4.0. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.

Results: A total of 10 observational studies (2 with population data from the National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI and the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results - SEER databases) were included, evaluating a total of 6127 patients. There were no randomized control trials. There were no differences regarding overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, p = .19, I2 = 36%) or disease-free survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.08, p = .19, I2 = 0%) between SLN mapping and lymphadenectomy. Recurrence rates (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06, p = .12, I2 = 0%) and adjuvant therapy (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.48, p = .26, I2 = 85%) were also similar between the groups. In a sub-group analysis including only the high-risk population, a statistically significant difference in overall survival favored SLN mapping compared with the lymphadenectomy (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89, p < .01, I2 = 0%). Similarly, the analysis of propensity score-matched studies showed better overall survival in the SLN cohort (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p < .01, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: SLN mapping is associated with similar oncologic outcomes to lymphadenectomy in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Routine lymphadenectomy should no longer be considered a standard of care.

高、中、高风险子宫内膜癌患者前哨淋巴结定位的肿瘤学结果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:前哨淋巴结(SLN)定位尚未广泛应用于高、中、高风险子宫内膜癌。本研究的目的是确定高、中、高风险人群行SLN定位与系统盆腔±腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术的肿瘤预后。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane数据库,比较SLN与淋巴结切除术治疗高或中高风险子宫内膜癌患者的试验。如果研究缺乏对照组,涉及重叠人群,只能作为摘要提供,或者不是英文的,则排除研究。主要结局是总生存、无病生存、复发率和辅助治疗率。预先指定的亚组分析包括高危患者、高中危患者和倾向评分匹配的研究。使用RStudio Version 4.4.0进行统计分析。采用I2统计量评估异质性。结果:共纳入10项观察性研究(2项来自国家生物技术信息中心(NCBI)和监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库的人口数据),共评估了6127例患者。没有随机对照试验。SLN定位和淋巴结切除术在总生存率(HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 ~ 1.11, p = 0.19, I2 = 36%)和无病生存率(HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.08, p = 0.19, I2 = 0%)方面没有差异。两组复发率(OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 ~ 1.06, p = 0.12, I2 = 0%)和辅助治疗(OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.78 ~ 2.48, p = 0.26, I2 = 85%)也相似。在仅包括高危人群的亚组分析中,与淋巴结切除术相比,SLN定位的总生存率具有统计学意义(OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44至0.89,p < 0.01, I2 = 0%)。同样,倾向评分匹配研究的分析显示,SLN队列的总生存率更高(OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 ~ 0.87, p < 0.01, I2 = 0%)。结论:在高、中、高风险子宫内膜癌患者中,SLN定位与淋巴结切除术的肿瘤预后相似。常规淋巴结切除术不应再被认为是一种标准的治疗方法。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信