Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 191–199 | Cite as

A GCIG international survey: clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer

  • G. F. VercellinoEmail author
  • E. Erdemoglu
  • P. Lichtenberg
  • M. Z. Muallem
  • R. Richter
  • N. R. Abu-Rustum
  • M. Plante
  • F. Lécuru
  • S. Greggi
  • B. J. Monk
  • S. Sagae
  • C. Denkert
  • M. Keller
  • M. Alhakeem
  • M. Hellriegel
  • A. M. Dückelmann
  • V. Chiantera
  • Jalid SehouliEmail author
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the practice patterns among centers and physicians worldwide regarding sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in cervical cancer (CC) patients.

Method

A validated 35-item questionnaire regarding SLNB in CC supported by the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and sponsored by the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic–Oncology (NOGGO) was sent to all major gynecological cancer societies across the globe for further distribution from October 2015 and continued for a period of 7 months.

Results

One hundred and sixty-one institutions from around the world participated. One hundred and six (66%) of the participants were from university centers and 111 (69%) were gynecologic oncologists. One hundred and fifty-two (97%) performed lymphadenectomy (LNE) and 147 (94%) did so systematically; 97 (60%) used SLNB, due to lower morbidity (73%), reliability (55%) and time-saving (27%). In cases of positive SLNB (pN+), 39% of respondents stopped the operation and sent the patient for chemoradiation (CRT), 45% completed pelvic and paraaortic LNE, whereas 26% went on to perform a radical hysterectomy (RH) and systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. In case of negative SLNB (pN0), 39% of institutions still performed a systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE.

Conclusion

In this survey worldwide, SLNB adoption is an encouraging 60%, yet ample differences exist regarding strategy, and to a lower extent the techniques used. Lack of experience is the most common reason SLNB is not performed. Efforts to increase surgical education on SLNB technique and multicenter prospective trials providing evidence-based guidelines are warranted.

Keywords

International survey Sentinel lymph node biopsy Cervical cancer 

Notes

Author contributions

GFV: idea, questionnaire editing, questionnaire editing revision, data collection, manuscript editing, table editing, manuscript revision; EE: data collection, manuscript revision; PL: data collection; MZM: data collection; RR: data collection; NAR: data collection, manuscript revision; MP: data collection, manuscript revision; FL: data collection, manuscript revision; SG: data collection; BJM: data collection, manuscript revision; SS: data collection, manuscript revision; MA: data collection; CD: data collection; MK: questionnaire and reminder posting, contact with centers, manuscript revision; MH: data collection; AMD: data collection; VC: data collection, manuscript revision; JS: questionnaire editing revision, data collection, manuscript revision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article exists. Specifically, Bradley Monk has consulted for Roche Inc, Genmab and Advaxis; other authors declare no conflicts of interest. Thanks to: Ione und Costas Tziouvas for their very precious help editing the article.

Supplementary material

404_2019_5164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (247 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 246 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Delgado G, Bundy BN, Fowler WC Jr, Stehman FB, Sevin B, Creasman WT, Major F, DiSaia P, Zaino R (1989) A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 35(3):314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Driscoll DO, Halpenny D, Johnston C, Sheehy N, Keogan M (2015) 18F-FDG-PET/CT is of limited value in primary staging of early stage cervical cancer. Abdom Imaging 40(1):127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R (2018) Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 143(Suppl 2):22–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beesley V, Janda M, Eakin E, Obermair A, Battistutta D (2007) Lymphedema after gynecological cancer treatment: prevalence, correlates, and supportive care needs. Cancer 109(12):2607–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Magrina JF, Goodrich MA, Lidner TK, Weaver AL, Cornella JL, Podratz KC (1999) Modified radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early squamous cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 72(2):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aldredge LM (2007) The role of sentinel node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Nurs Clin North Am 42(3):379–392 (v–vi) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Galimberti V, Luini A, Zurrida S, Robertson C, Sacchini V, Veronesi P, Orvieto E, De Cicco C, Intra M, Tosi G, Scarpa D (1999) Sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection in breast cancer: results in a large series. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(4):368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Cicco C, Sideri M, Bartolomei M, Grana C, Cremonesi M, Fiorenza M, Maggioni A, Bocciolone L, Mangioni C, Colombo N, Paganelli G (2000) Sentinel node biopsy in early vulvar cancer. Br J Cancer 82(2):295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plante M, Renaud MC, Têtu B, Harel F, Roy M (2003) Laparoscopic sentinel node mapping in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 91(3):494–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lécuru F, Mathevet P, Querleu D, Leblanc E, Morice P, Daraï E, Marret H, Magaud L, Gillaizeau F, Chatellier G, Dargent D (2011) Bilateral negative sentinel nodes accurately predict absence of lymph node metastasis in early cervical cancer: results of the SENTICOL study. J Clin Oncol 29(13):1686–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.0432 (Epub 2011 Mar 28) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stegeman M, Louwen M, van der Velden J, ten Kate FJ, den Bakker MA, Burger CW, Ansink AC (2007) The incidence of parametrial tumor involvement in select patients with early cervix cancer is too low to justify parametrectomy. Gynecol Oncol 105(2):475–480 (Epub 2007 Feb 9) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vercellino GF, Koehler C, Erdemoglu E, Mangler M, Lanowska M, Malak AH, Schneider A, Chiantera V (2014) Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in 32 pregnant patients with cervical cancer: rationale, description of the technique, and outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(2):364–371.  https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000000064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marnitz S, Köhler C, Roth C, Füller J, Hinkelbein W, Schneider A (2005) Is there a benefit of pretreatment laparoscopic transperitoneal surgical staging in patients with advanced cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol 99(3):536–544 (Epub 2005 Aug 29) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaal A, Zweemer RP, Zikán M, Dusek L, Querleu D, Lécuru F, Bats AS, Jach R, Sevcik L, Graf P, Klát J, Dyduch G, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Kenter GG, Verheijen RH, Cibula D (2014) Pelvic lymphadenectomy improves survival in patients with cervical cancer with low-volume disease in the sentinel node: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(2):303–311.  https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000000043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holman LL, Levenback CF, Frumovitz M (2014) Sentinel lymph node evaluation in women with cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(4):540–545.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.095 (Epub 2014 Jan 7) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bats AS, Frati A, Mathevet P, Orliaguet I, Querleu D, Zerdoud S, Leblanc E, Gauthier H, Uzan C, Deandreis D, Darai E, Kerrou K, Marret H, Lenain E, Froissart M, Lecuru F (2015) Contribution of lymphoscintigraphy to intraoperative sentinel lymph node detection in early cervical cancer: analysis of the prospective multicenter SENTICOL cohort. Gynecol Oncol 137(2):264–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.02.018 (Epub 2015 Feb 26) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rob L, Robova H, Halaska MJ, Hruda M, Skapa P (2013) Current status of sentinel lymph node mapping in the management of cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 13(7):861–870.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2013.811147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, Slama J, Zikán M, Zaal A, Sevcik L, Kenter G, Querleu D, Jach R, Bats AS, Dyduch G, Graf P, Klat J, Meijer CJ, Mery E, Verheijen R, Zweemer RP (2012) Bilateral ultrastaging of sentinel lymph node in cervical cancer: Lowering the false-negative rate and improving the detection of micrometastasis. Gynecol Oncol 127(3):462–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.035 (Epub 2012 Aug 31) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salvo G, Ramirez PT, Levenback CF, Munsell MF, Euscher ED, Soliman PT, Frumovitz M (2017) Sensitivity and negative predictive value for sentinel lymph node biopsy in women with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 145(1):96–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.005 (Epub 2017 Feb 8) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Narayan K, Lin MY (2015) Staging for cervix cancer: role of radiology, surgery and clinical assessment. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 29(6):833–844.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.01.005 (Epub 2015 Mar 4) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Oostrum NH, Makar AP, Van Den Broecke R (2012) Sentinel node procedures in gynecologic cancers: an overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(2):174–181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01302.x (Epub 2011 Dec 20) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diaz JP, Gemignani ML, Pandit-Taskar N, Park KJ, Murray MP, Chi DS, Sonoda Y, Barakat RR, Abu-Rustum NR (2011) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of early-stage cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 120(3):347–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.334 (Epub 2011 Jan 8) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Puente R, Guzman S, Israel E, Poblete MT (2004) Do the pelvic lymph nodes predict the parametrial status in cervical cancer stages IB-IIA? Int J Gynecol Cancer 14(5):832–840Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slama J, Dundr P, Dusek L, Fischerova D, Pinkavova I, Zikan M, Vrzackova P, Kojanova M, Cibula D (2012) Sentinel lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancers and impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 125(2):303–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.02.010 (Epub 2012 Feb 14) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, DePetrillo AD, Lickrish G, Colgan T, Chapman W, Shaw P (2002) How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol 84(1):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith B, Backes F (2015) The role of sentinel lymph nodes in endometrial and cervical cancer. J Surg Oncol 112(7):753–760.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24022 (Epub 2015 Sep 9) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy M, Bouchard-Fortier G, Popa I, Grégoire J, Renaud MC, Têtu B, Plante M (2011) Value of sentinel node mapping in cancer of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 122(2):269–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.002 (Epub 2011 Apr 29) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sagae S, Monk BJ, Pujade-Lauraine E, Gaffney DK, Narayan K, Ryu SY, McCormack M, Plante M, Casado A, Reuss A, Chávez-Blanco A, Kitchener H, Nam BH, Jhingran A, Temkin S, Mileshkin L, Berns E, Scholl S, Doll C, Abu-Rustum NR, Lecuru F, Small W Jr, Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Cervix Cancer brainstorming day (2016) Advances and concepts in cervical cancer trials: a road map for the future. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 26(1):199–207.  https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000000587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marchiolé P, Buénerd A, Benchaib M, Nezhat K, Dargent D, Mathevet P (2005) Clinical significance of lympho vascular space involvement and lymph node micrometastases in early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case-control surgico-pathological study. Gynecol Oncol 97(3):727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, Zikán M, Zaal A, Sevcik L, Kenter GG, Querleu D, Jach R, Bats AS, Dyduch G, Graf P, Klat J, Lacheta J, Meijer CJ, Mery E, Verheijen R, Zweemer RP (2012) Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 124(3):496–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.037 (Epub 2011 Nov 25) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cormier B, Diaz JP, Shih K, Sampson RM, Sonoda Y, Park KJ, Alektiar K, Chi DS, Barakat RR, Abu-Rustum NR (2011) Establishing a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm for the treatment of early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 122(2):275–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.023 (Epub 2011 May 13) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee YS, Rhim CC, Lee HN, Lee KH, Park JS, Namkoong SE (2007) HPV status in sentinel nodes might be a prognostic factor in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 105(2):351–357 (Epub 2007 Feb 2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Slama J, Dundr P, Dusek L, Cibula D (2013) High false negative rate of frozen section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 129(2):384–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.001 (Epub 2013 Feb 8) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Altgassen C, Hertel H, Brandstädt A, Köhler C, Dürst M, Schneider A, AGO Study Group (2008) Multicenter validation study of the sentinel lymph node concept in cervical cancer: AGO Study Group. J Clin Oncol 26(18):2943–2951.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.8933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bats AS, Buénerd A, Querleu D, Leblanc E, Daraï E, Morice P, Marret H, Gillaizeau F, Mathevet P, Lécuru F, SENTICOL collaborative group (2011) Diagnostic value of intraoperative examination of sentinel lymph node in early cervical cancer: a prospective, multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol. 123(2):230–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.010 (Epub 2011 Sep 3) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bats AS, Mathevet P, Buenerd A, Orliaguet I, Mery E, Zerdoud S, Le Frère-Belda MA, Froissart M, Querleu D, Martinez A, Leblanc E, Morice P, Daraï E, Marret H, Gillaizeau F, Lécuru F (2013) 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 20(2):413–422.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2597-7 (Epub 2012 Aug 22) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jewell EL, Huang JJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Gardner GJ, Brown CL, Sonoda Y, Barakat RR, Levine DA, Leitao MM Jr (2014) Detection of sentinel lymph nodes in minimally invasive surgery using indocyanine green and near-infrared fluorescence imaging for uterine and cervical malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 133(2):274–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.028 (Epub 2014 Feb 28) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plante M, Touhami O, Trinh XB, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Gregoire J (2015) Sentinel node mapping with indocyanine green and endoscopic near-infrared fluorescence imaging in endometrial cancer. A pilot study and review of the literature. GynecolOncol 137(3):443–447.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.004 (Epub 2015 Mar 11) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Andikyan V, Khoury-Collado F, Denesopolis J, Park KJ, Hussein YR, Brown CL, Sonoda Y, Chi DS, Barakat RR, Abu-Rustum NR (2014) Cervical conization and sentinel lymph node mapping in the treatment of stage I cervical cancer: is less enough? Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(1):113–117.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garg G, Shah JP, Toy EP, Field JB, Bryant CS, Liu JR, Morris RT (2011) Intra-operative detection of nodal metastasis in early stage cervical cancer: a survey of the practice patterns of SGO members. Gynecol Oncol 121(1):143–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.337 (Epub 2011 Jan 26) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. F. Vercellino
    • 1
    • 14
    Email author
  • E. Erdemoglu
    • 2
  • P. Lichtenberg
    • 1
  • M. Z. Muallem
    • 1
  • R. Richter
    • 1
  • N. R. Abu-Rustum
    • 3
  • M. Plante
    • 4
  • F. Lécuru
    • 5
    • 6
  • S. Greggi
    • 7
  • B. J. Monk
    • 8
  • S. Sagae
    • 9
  • C. Denkert
    • 11
  • M. Keller
    • 1
  • M. Alhakeem
    • 1
    • 10
  • M. Hellriegel
    • 12
  • A. M. Dückelmann
    • 1
  • V. Chiantera
    • 13
  • Jalid Sehouli
    • 1
    • 15
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology With Center for Oncological SurgeryCharité UniverstitätmedizinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gynecologic OncologySuleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey
  3. 3.Gynecology Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Division of Gynecologic OncologyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Laval QuébecQuebecCanada
  5. 5.Department of Gynecologic Oncologic and Breast SurgeryHôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (HEGP)ParisFrance
  6. 6.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  7. 7.Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori di NapoliNaplesItaly
  8. 8.University of Arizona Cancer Center-Phoenix, Creighton University School of Medicine at St Joseph’s Hospital and Medical CenterPhoenixUSA
  9. 9.Department of Gynecologic OncologySapporo West Kojinkai ClinicSapporoJapan
  10. 10.Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, College of MedicineKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  11. 11.Department of PathologyCharité UniverstitätmedizinBerlinGermany
  12. 12.Clinic for Obstetrics and GynecologyUMG UniversitätmedizinGöttingenGermany
  13. 13.Department of Gynecologic OncologyUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  14. 14.UMG Universität Medizin GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  15. 15.ESGO Center of Excellence Ovarian Cancer Surgery, ESGO Accredited European Training Centre in Gynaecological Oncology, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCCC), Universitätsmedizin Berlin Charité/Medical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations