Sentinel lymph node concept in early stages cervical cancer

Czech version

Authors: R. Kocián
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko‑porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. A. Martan, DrSc.
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2020; 85(5): 344-351
Category: Review Article

Overview

Objective: Summary of current evidence about sentinel lymph node concept in early stages cervical cancer.

Design: Review.

Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General University Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague.

Methods: First, a comprehensive search of a peer-reviewed journals in gynaecological oncology was conducted based on a wide range of key words used in PubMed database. Second, the reference section for each article found was searched in order to find additional articles. Third, extensive personal clinical and scientifical experience with sentinel lymph node concept in cervical cancer was utilized.

Results: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is routinely used in the management of early stages cervical cancer with high detection rate in skilled surgeon’s hands. It has high sensitivity and low false negative rate. The intraoperative sentinel lymph node examination (i.e. frozen section) has low accuracy because it fails to detect about half of cases with lymph node involvement. Final pathological examination with intensive protocol for ultrastaging detects additional 10% of patients with small metastases (i.e. micrometastasis), who would be otherwise missed. There are limited data about the importance of micrometastasis involvement in sentinel lymph node; there is also growing evidence about negative prognostic impact and patients with micrometastasis should be managed with the same criteria as patients with macrometastasis.

Conclusion: Sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by full pelvic lymph node dissection is currently standard of care until ongoing prospective trials answer question about oncological safety of less radical surgical approach with sentinel lymph node biopsy only.

Keywords:

Prognosis – sensitivity – cervical cancer – sentinel lymph node – detection rate – false negative rate – frozen section – ultrastaging – micrometastasis

Sources

1. Altgassen, C., Hertel, H., Brandstädt, A., et al. Multicenter Validation Study of the Sentinel Lymph Node Concept in Cervical Cancer: AGO Study Group. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(18), p. 2943–2951.

2. Alvarez, RD., Soong, SJ., Kinney, WK., et al. Identification of prognostic factors and risk groups in patients found to have nodal metastasis at the time of radical hysterectomy for early-stage squamous carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol, 1989, 35, p. 130–135.

3. Balaya, V., Bresset, A., Guani, B., et al. Risk factors for failure of bilateral sentinel lymph node mapping in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 156(1), p. 93–99.

4. Balaya, V., Mathevet, P., Magaud, L., et al. Predictive factors of unexpected lymphatic drainage pathways in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 154(1), p. 102–109.

5. Bats, A., Buénerd, A., Querleu, D., et al. Diagnostic value of intraoperative examination of sentinel lymph node in early cervical cancer: A prospective, multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol, 2011, 123, p. 230–235.

6. Bats, A., Mathevet, P., Buenerd, A., et al. The Sentinel Node Technique Detects Unexpected Drainage Pathways and Allows Nodal Ultrastaging in Early Cervical Cancer: Insights from the Multicenter Prospective SENTICOL Study. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013, 20, p. 413–422.

7. Bizzarri, N., Pedone Anchora, L., Zannoni, GF., et al. Role of one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) to detect sentinel lymph node low-volume metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(3), p. 364–371.

8. Brown, JS., Sawaya, G., Thom, DH., Grady, D. Hysterectomy and urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Lancet, 2000, 356(9229), p. 535–539.

9. Buda, A., Crivellaro, C., Elisei, F., et al. Impact of indocyanine green for sentinel lymph node mapping in early stage endometrial and cervical cancer: comparison with conventional radiotracer 99mTc and/or blue dye. Ann Surg Oncol, 2016, 23, p. 2183–2191.

10. Cibula, D., Abu-Rustum, NR. Pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer – surgical anatomy and proposal for a new classification system. Gynecol Oncol, 2010, 116, p. 33–37.

11. Cibula, D., Abu-Rustum, N., Dusek, L., et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2012, 124, p. 496–501.

12. Cibula, D., Dusek, J., Jarkovsky, J., et al. A prospective multicenter trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early stage cervical cancer (SENTIX). Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2019, 29(1), p. 212–215.

13. Cibula, D., Kocian, R., Plaikner, A., et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and intraoperative assessment in a prospective, international, multicentre, observational trial of patients with cervical cancer: The SENTIX trial Eur J Cancer, 2020, in press.

14. Cibula, D., McCluggage, WG. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in cervical cancer: Current limitations and unanswered questions. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 152(1), p. 202–207.

15. Cibula, D., Oonk, MH., Abu-Rustum, NR. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 27(1), p. 66–72.

16. Cibula, D., Pötter R., Planchamp, F., et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28, p. 641–655.

17. Dargent, D., Martin X., Mathevet, P. Laparoscopic assessment of the sentinel lymph node in early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2000, 79(3), p. 411–415.

18. Delgado, G., Bundy, B., Zaino, R., et al. Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol, 1990, 38, p. 352–357.

19. Dostálek, L., Zikan, M., Fischerova, D., et al. SLN biopsy in cervical cancer patients with tumors larger than 2 cm and 4 cm. Gynecol Oncol, 2018, 148, p. 456–460.

20. Dundr, P., Cibula, D., Nemejcova, K., et al. Pathologic protocols for sentinel lymph nodes ultrastaging in cervical cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019, 10.5858/arpa.2019-0249-RA, doi:10.5858/arpa.2019-0249-RA.

21. Grisaru, DA., Covens, A., Franssen, E., et al. Histopathologic score predicts recurrence free survival after radical surgery in patients with stage IA2-IB1-2 cervical carcinoma. Cancer, 2003, 97, p. 1904–1908.

22. Guani, B., Dorez, M., Magaud, L., et al. Impact of micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells on recurrence and survival in patients with early cervical cancer: SENTICOL Trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2019, 29, p. 447–452.

23. Ho, CM., Chien, TY., Huang, SH., et al. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors and outcomes in early cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2004, 93, p. 458–464.

24. Kamura, T., Tsukamoto, N., Tsuruchi, N., et al. Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer, 1992, 69, p. 181–186.

25. Kocian, R., Slama, J., Fischerova, D., et al. Micrometastases in Sentinel Lymph Nodes Represent a Significant Negative Prognostic Factor in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study. Cancers (Basel), 2020,12(6), p. 1438.

26. Lecuru, F., Mathevet, P., Querleu, D., et al. Bilateral negative sentinel nodes accurately predict absence of lymph node metastasis in early cervical cancer: results of the SENTICOL study. J Clin Oncol, 2011, 29(13), p. 1686–1691.

27. Lecuru, FR., McCormack, M., Hillemanns, P., et al. SENTICOL III: an international validation study of sentinel node biopsy in early cervical cancer. A GINECO, ENGOT, GCIG and multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2019, 29(4), p. 829–834.

28. Martínez, A., Mery, E., Filleron, T., et al. Accuracy of intraoperative pathological examination of SLN in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 130(3), p. 525–529.

29. NCCN. Cervical Cancer – NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (version 2. 2020 - July 24, 2020). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf.

30. Niikura, H., Okamoto, S., Otsuki, T., et al. Prospective Study of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Without Further Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Patients With Sentinel Lymph Node–Negative Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012, 22, p. 1244–1250.

31. Piñero, A., Illana, J., García-Palenciano, C., et al. Effect on Oximetry of Dyes Used for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: Are There Differences? Arch Surg., 2004,139(11), p. 1204–1207.

32. Rob, L., Robova, H., Halaska, MJ., et al. Current status of sentinel lymph node mapping in the management of cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2013, 13, p. 861–870.

33. Rychlik, A., Angeles, M., Migliorelli, F., et al. Frozen section examination of sentinel lymph nodes can be used as a decisional tool in the surgical management of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30, p. 358–363.

34. Salvo, G., Ramirez, PT., Levenback, CF., et al. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for sentinel lymph node biopsy in women with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2017, 145(1), p. 96–101.

35. Sevin, BU., Lu, Y., Bloch, DA., et al. Surgically defined prognostic parameters in patients with early cervical carcinoma. A multivariate survival tree analysis. Cancer, 1996, 78, p. 1438–1446.

36. Wydra, D., Sawicki, S., Wojtylak, S., et al. Sentinel node identification in cervical cancer patients undergoing transperitoneal radical hysterectomy: a study of 100 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2006, 16(2), p. 649–654.

37. Yuan, CC., Wang, PH., Lai, CR., et al. Prognosis-predicting system based on factors related to survival of cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 1998, 63, p. 163–167.

38. Zarganis, P., Kondi-Pafiti, A., Arapantoni-Dadioti, P., et al. The sentinel node in cervical cancer patients: role of tumor size and invasion of lymphatic vascular space. In Vivo, 2009, 23(3), p. 469–473.