前哨淋巴结活检在高危子宫内膜癌中的应用进展
Advances in the Application of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer
摘要: 子宫内膜癌作为危害女性健康的一个重要因素,除了癌症本身对女性健康的影响,手术过程以及术后并发症,都成为影响患者术后生活质量的重要因素,其中系统性淋巴结清扫术作为影响术后生活质量的一个原因,成为了关注点。前哨淋巴结活检作为替代系统性淋巴结清扫术的方案,一方面可以降低术中及术后的并发症发生率,另一方面,可以进行病理超分期,发现更小的病变,如孤立肿瘤细胞和微转移,以指导进一步治疗。前哨淋巴结活检的示踪剂及其注射部位有着较多的探索和研究,常用的示踪剂有吲哚菁绿等,注射部位则包括子宫颈注射及多个部位联合注射等。病理超分期也不局限于传统的伊红苏木精染色联合免疫组化,出现了基于分子检测的一步核酸扩增等方法,以提高检测的速度和准确性。依照前哨淋巴结算法,前哨淋巴结活检在低危子宫内膜癌中有着良好的前景,而对于高危子宫内膜癌,仍需要更多的研究明确其可行性。
Abstract: Endometrial cancer has a huge effect on women’s health. In addition to the impact of cancer itself on women’s health, the surgical process and postoperative complications have become important factors affecting patients’ postoperative quality of life. Systematic lymphadenectomy has become a focus as a reason for affecting the quality of life after surgery. Sentinel lymph node biopsy, as an alternative to systematic lymphadenectomy, can reduce the incidence of complications during and after surgery, and on the other hand, it can be used for pathological ultra-staging to find smaller lesions, such as isolated tumor cells and micrometastasis, to guide further treatment. There are many explorations and researches on the tracers of sentinel lymph node biopsy and their injection sites. The commonly used tracers include indocyanine green, and the injection sites include cervical injection and joint injection of multiple sites. Pathological ultra-staging is not limited to the traditional eosin hematoxylin staining combined with immunohistochemistry, and there are one-step nucleic acid amplification methods based on molecular detection to improve the speed and accuracy of detection. According to the sentinel lymph node algorithm, sentinel lymph node biopsy has a good prospect in low-risk endometrial cancer, but for high-risk endometrial cancer, more research is still needed to clarify its feasibility.
文章引用:王钊松, 李世娇, 夏敏. 前哨淋巴结活检在高危子宫内膜癌中的应用进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(3): 1449-1455. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.143864

1. 引言

子宫内膜癌(endometrial cancer)是女性中最常见的癌症,其发病率世界各地差异较大,以北美、东欧、西欧等地发病率最高,每10万人发病人数分别为21.1、20.2、16.4,而死亡率差距较小,以东欧、密克罗西亚/波里尼西亚、加勒比、北美等地死亡率最高,每10万人的死亡人数分别为3.7、3.5、3.5、3.0 [1] ,对女性的身体健康产生极大的威胁。子宫内膜癌的手术方式是子宫 + 双侧附件切除术 + 盆腔淋巴结清扫术/腹主动脉淋巴结清扫术,其中,淋巴结清扫术作为手术分期的一个重要环节,对评估术后指导辅助治疗、评估预后有着重要意义,同时,盆腔和腹主动脉旁淋巴结的标准切除术后,超过30%的患者出现淋巴水肿,其他的短期风险包括术中意外损伤输尿管、血管、神经等组织,手术时间延长和出血量增加 [2] ,对患者的术后生活质量有比较大的影响,而后来出现的前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy, SLNB)一定程度上可以减少标准淋巴结清扫术造成的术中、术后并发症。

前哨淋巴结(sentinel lymph node, SLN)是原发肿瘤区域淋巴引流的第一站淋巴结,一定程度上可以反映整个盆腹腔淋巴结的转移情况。前哨淋巴结活检在子宫内膜癌中的应用进展以低危子宫内膜癌为主,本综述主要探究前哨淋巴结活检在高危子宫内膜癌中的应用进展。根据风险分层,高危子宫内膜癌主要包括所有分期和组织学分类中具有p53突变和肌层浸润的子宫内膜癌、所有分期中的浆液性癌和未分化癌以及III-IVA期没有病灶残留的子宫内膜癌 [3] 。2022年美国国立综合癌症网络指南(National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN)指出:与全身性淋巴结切除术相比,前哨淋巴结定位与病理超分期可以更准确的检测子宫局限性疾病的淋巴结转移,且假阴性率低 [4] 。有研究指出,前哨淋巴结活检与盆腔淋巴结清扫两种手术方式在肿瘤预后方面没有差异 [5] [6] ,同时,前哨淋巴结可以减少淋巴清扫导致的术后并发症 [7] ,有荟萃分析纳入了5852名子宫内膜癌患者,比较了前哨淋巴结活检与淋巴结清扫术,前哨淋巴结活检在减少手术出血量方面优于淋巴结清扫术,且二者在总生存时间和无进展生存期方面没有差异 [5] 。Geppert等人比较了全子宫 + 双侧附件切除术、全子宫 + 双侧附件切除术 + 前哨淋巴结活检与全子宫 + 双侧附件切除术 + 系统性淋巴结清扫术的手术时间,前哨淋巴结活检组和系统性淋巴结清扫术组的平均手术时间分别延长了33分钟和91分钟,且前哨淋巴结活检组的下肢淋巴水肿发生率为1.3%,低于系统性淋巴结清扫组的18.1% [8] 。Liu等人也发现前哨淋巴结活检的手术时间、失血量和术后并发症发生率均低于系统性淋巴结清扫术 [9] 。同时,也有回顾性研究探索二者在对预后的影响,前哨淋巴结活检的3年总体生存率为79.9%,系统性淋巴结清扫术为78.6%,二者没有统计学差异 [10] 。有调查显示前哨淋巴结活检术后下肢淋巴水肿患病率为26.0%,而接受系统性淋巴结清扫术的患者的术后下肢淋巴水肿的患病率为49.4% [11] 。综上所述,前哨淋巴结活检在减少患者术后并发症等方面相比于系统性淋巴结清扫术有着明显的优势,且二者在预后上并没有明显的差异 [12] 。

前哨淋巴结活检在高危子宫内膜癌中具有一定的准确性和敏感性 [13] ,Marchoki等人的研究中共有87名淋巴结阳性的高危子宫内膜癌患者,其中前哨淋巴结活检能正确识别80例,其敏感性为92%、阴性预测值为97%、假阴性率为8% [14] ,但Ye等人的一项前瞻性研究纳入了131名患者,其中在高危子宫内膜癌中,前哨淋巴结活检识别淋巴结转移的敏感性仅为20%,假阴性率高达80% [15] ,有学者认为此研究出现低敏感性和高假阴性率的原因是因为前哨淋巴结活检漏诊转移的腹主动脉旁淋巴结,其原因仍需大规模多中心研究验证 [12] 。由此可见,在高危子宫内膜癌中,前哨淋巴结活检的应用还有待进一步的补充和完善。

2. 前哨淋巴结活检的示踪剂及注射方法

目前前哨淋巴结活检的示踪剂主要包括蓝色染料、放射性示踪剂、荧光染料、活性炭等。蓝色染料包括亚甲蓝、异硫蓝、专利蓝等,染色效果较好,但染料的渗漏且有过敏风险。放射性示踪剂如锝-99m,注入示踪剂后利用探测器等检测,穿透性较好。荧光染料如吲哚菁绿,注入后术中使用荧光成像探测淋巴结显影。纳米活性炭具有较强的淋巴吸附特异性,注射到肿瘤局部组织后,可以被巨噬细胞吞噬,毛细淋巴管内皮细胞间隙为120~500 nm,而毛细血管内皮细胞间隙为20~50 nm,所以纳米碳不会进入血管,只会停留在淋巴管中,使淋巴结和淋巴管显影。有研究显示,各种示踪剂相比,敏感性分别为:单独使用蓝色染料90.5%,单独使用锝-99m 90.5%,单独使用吲哚菁绿92.5% [16] ;另一项研究中吲哚菁绿的双侧检出率为75%,高于蓝色染料的51%,而蓝色染料、放射性示踪剂、纳米活性炭的总检出率分别为92%、86%、96.5% [17] 。相比于蓝色染料,吲哚菁绿在检测前哨淋巴结上更有效 [18] 。

使用单个示踪剂的敏感性较低时,联合使用示踪剂可以略微提高前哨淋巴结检出的敏感性,其中,吲哚菁绿和锝-99m联合使用的敏感性为100% [16] 。有回顾性研究得出了完全不同的结论,该研究共纳入了180名患者,其中单用吲哚菁绿的检出率为94.6%,联合使用吲哚菁绿和锝-99m的检出率为90.4,双侧盆腔及腹主动脉旁前哨淋巴结检出率均未显示出明显差异,同时却增加了手术时长 [19] 。由此可见,联合使用示踪剂对前哨淋巴结的检出率是否有帮助以及在高危子宫内膜癌中是否有更好的表现仍需要更多的前瞻性多中心研究验证。

前哨淋巴结示踪剂的注射部位主要为子宫颈注射、宫底注射和宫腔镜下病灶周围注射,最新NCCN指南中提出:可选择宫颈部位注射,采用浅层(1~3 mm)和可选择的深层(10~20 mm)注射示踪剂 [4] 。加拿大的一项研究中,募集了126名高危子宫内膜癌患者,采用宫颈3点和9点浅层和深层同时注射,最终发生淋巴结转移的有27例,前哨淋巴结活检正确识别的患者26例,敏感性为96% [20] 。一项荟萃分析纳入了近20年的高危子宫内膜癌患者,其中87名患者盆腔淋巴结阳性,均采用宫颈注射示踪剂,前哨淋巴结活检正确识别了80名患者,敏感性为92% [14] 。这些研究均表明,宫颈注射示踪剂在高危子宫内膜癌中显示盆腔淋巴结转移中有良好的表现。Maramai等人的研究了宫颈再注射吲哚菁绿以提高前哨淋巴结检出的作用,以减少单侧特异性淋巴结切除的数量,研究共纳入了251名患者,其中首次注射时双侧检出率为73.3%,单侧检出率为22.7%,未检出率为4.0%,宫颈再注射后双侧检出率提高到94.5%,单侧和未检出率分别为5.1%和0.4%,提示宫颈再注射可以有效改善单次宫颈注射中未显影的淋巴结 [21] 。对于高危子宫内膜癌中单次注射显影效果不佳时,可以考虑使用再注射提高检出率。

Marjaneh Farazestanian等人的研究采用了宫颈注射放射性示踪剂、宫底注射蓝色染料对比,盆腔前哨淋巴结显影的患者共71例,两种注射方法的一致率为97.18%,在腹主动脉旁淋巴结显影上,二者有些许差别,共有10例腹主动脉旁淋巴结阳性,其中宫底注射均显影,宫颈注射仅有2例 [22] 。对于宫腔镜下病灶周围注射与宫颈注射,意大利一项前瞻性研究中151名患者纳入分析,支持宫颈注射而不是宫腔镜注射在盆腔前哨淋巴结方面更有优势,宫腔镜注射显示腹主动脉旁前哨淋巴结的检测能力比宫颈注射提高约10%,但这一差异并没有统计学意义 [23] 。宫颈注射为高危子宫内膜癌的可选择方法,可以同时辅助宫底注射示踪剂以提高腹主动脉旁淋巴结检出率。

3. 前哨淋巴结算法

子宫内膜癌的盆腔前哨淋巴结引流途径大致有3种通路:上子宫颈旁通路,沿子宫动脉引流髂外淋巴结和(或)闭孔淋巴结;下子宫颈旁通路,沿子宫静脉引流髂内和(或)骶前淋巴结;骨盆漏斗韧带通路,沿骨盆漏斗韧带引流腹主动脉旁淋巴结。

大部分示踪剂显影的淋巴结均位于上子宫颈旁通路,而高危子宫内膜癌出现骶前淋巴结转移的可能不能忽略,所以前哨淋巴结显影应考虑淋巴结的引流通路,避免识别的淋巴结非前哨淋巴结。前哨淋巴结算法应该基于解剖学进行 [24] ,在SHREC实验中,采用宫颈注射吲哚菁绿后观察上子宫颈旁通路和下子宫颈旁通路来识别前哨淋巴结,1类前哨淋巴结被定义为子宫旁的ICG阳性结节,2类前哨淋巴结为引流ICG阳性通路的结节,最终纳入病例中有盆腔淋巴结转移54例,正确识别52例,另外2例均通过整体前哨淋巴结算法识别,其中SLN-ICG算法敏感性为98%,阴性预测值为99.5%,整体SLN算法的敏感性为100%,阴性预测值为100% [25] 。此法虽然可以准确识别前哨淋巴结,但需要重复宫颈注射示踪剂,操作较为麻烦,且多次注射容易造成染料的泄露等意外事件发生,在高危子宫内膜癌中是否可行仍待相关研究证实。

NCCN指南中提到的SLN算法,要求未达到双侧前哨淋巴结显影时,应在前哨淋巴结显影失败的一侧选择该侧淋巴结系统性清扫,以免遗漏转移淋巴结 [4] 。严格遵循SLN算法可以提高前哨淋巴结检出率,降低假阴性率,不同部位联合注射示踪剂也能弥补腹主动脉旁淋巴结显影率低的问题,以便减少在高危子宫内膜癌中遗漏有病变转移的淋巴结,为术后辅助治疗提供正确的决策和指导。

4. 前哨淋巴结病理学

最新NCCN指南推荐对前哨淋巴结进行病理超分期(ultra-staging) [4] 。病理超分期是通过在每个石蜡块在两个水平上进行连续切片,间隔50 um相邻的5 um切片,进行苏木精和伊红(Hematoxylin-eosin staining, HE)染色,联合免疫组化染色(细胞角蛋白染色) [26] 。前哨淋巴结转移灶分为:孤立肿瘤细胞(isolated tumor cells, ITC),定义为单个肿瘤细胞或小于0.2 mm的恶性肿瘤细胞簇;微转移(micro metastasis),定义为大于等于0.2 mm但小于等于2.0 mm的转移灶;巨转移,定义为大于2.0 mm的转移灶。其中,微转移和孤立肿瘤细胞被称为低体积转移(low volume disease)。

一项国际多机构研究确定了低体积转移患者中的3个独立的复发危险因素:NE、LVSI和USI (非子宫内膜样癌、淋巴脉管间隙浸润、子宫浆膜侵犯),具有至少一个上述危险因素的患者复发的可能性是那些没有任何高危标准的患者的五倍 [27] 。最近对子宫内膜癌低体积转移的小样本研究发现,巨转移患者的5年FPS和OS分别为61.1%和50%,低体积转移患者的5年FPS和OS分别为71.4%和76.8%,淋巴结阴性患者的5年FPS和OS分别为83.2和81.5%,其差异具有统计学意义,在低体积转移患者中,观察到4例复发,其中2例为孤立肿瘤细胞,2例为微转移,均为远处转移 [26] 。另有研究表明孤立肿瘤细胞不应作为是否接受辅助治疗的生物标志物,对孤立肿瘤细胞患者的辅助治疗也显示与无瘤生存率没有明显的相关性 [28] 。欧洲最新子宫内膜癌管理认为微转移和巨转移属于转移性受累,而孤立肿瘤细胞的预后意义并不明确 [29] [30] 。Goeble等人的研究从之前前哨淋巴结活检阴性且未接受辅助治疗的患者,再次行免疫组化染色发现有孤立肿瘤细胞的患者共11名,在32.6个月的中位随访间隔后,没有患者复发,其中4名患者的随访间隔超过36个月,没有肿瘤复发的证据 [31] 。也有报告显示,孤立肿瘤细胞患者的3年无进展生存期与淋巴结阴性患者和微转移患者相似,但与巨转移患者相比具有统计学差异,其认为孤立肿瘤细胞的患者不应仅根据淋巴结状态接受辅助治疗,而辅助治疗的选择应该根据子宫因素 [32] 。

一步核酸扩增(one-step nucleic acid amplification, OSNA)是病理超分期中的一种自动化的分子诊断方法,使用CK19作为标志物来检测转移,是一种基于分子的检测系统,使用逆转录环介导的等温扩增(TR-LAMP)测定来确定前哨淋巴结中的CK19的mRNA拷贝数。CK19是细胞角蛋白19片段,是一种新的肿瘤标志物,在癌细胞分化过程中产生,已经在乳腺癌、结直肠癌等癌症中成为了分期的准确和可靠的工具,也有越来越多的证据表明,一步核酸扩增在识别子宫内膜癌的阳性淋巴结,尤其是微转移等方面具有良好的敏感性和特异性 [12] 。在西班牙的一项大型多中心研究中,通过一步核酸扩增和标准病理超分期两种方法对147名患者共379个前哨淋巴结进行评估,最终一步核酸扩增检测到19.7%的患者有转移,其中有14.9%的微转移和4.8%的巨转移,而病理超分期检测到8.8%的患者有转移,其中有3.4%的微转移和5.4%的巨转移,一步核酸扩增与标准的病理超分期相比,一步核酸扩增在检测前哨淋巴结转移(包括低体积转移)方面显示出更高的敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性 [33] 。另有研究显示,一步核酸扩增检测微转移的频率更高,子宫内膜癌III期患者增加了20.69% [34] 。日本一项研究纳入了30名宫颈癌和子宫内膜癌患者,其中子宫内膜癌共67个淋巴结,一步核酸扩增的敏感性、特异性和阴性预测值分别为85.7%、93.3%和98.2%,有着良好的表现 [35] 。同时,一步核酸扩增也需要更多的前瞻性实验来验证这一技术的可行性 [36] 。同时,CK19在子宫内膜癌患者的多中正常上皮组织中也有表达,因此,恰当的分界值对阳性淋巴结的判断也有重要意义。

高危子宫内膜癌采用病理超分期可以发现淋巴结的低体积转移病灶,便于在更早期发现淋巴结转移,避免因为术后补充治疗不充分而导致肿瘤复发,HE联合免疫组化染色和一步核酸扩增在高危子宫内膜癌的可行性需要更多的临床研究证实。

综上所述,前哨淋巴结活检在高危子宫内膜癌中仍处于探索阶段 [37] [38] ,但对于子宫内膜癌术后辅助治疗具有一定的指导意义 [12] ,也与临床结局的改善有关 [39] 。示踪剂的联合使用及注射方法的联合使用可以提高前哨淋巴结活检率,尤其是能提高腹主动脉旁淋巴结的检出率 [40] ,但联合使用会增加费用及示踪剂所带来的不良反应,因此,需要术前完善风险评估系统,指导术中前哨淋巴结活检的示踪剂及注射方法的选择。前哨淋巴结算法中依赖术中快速病理的结果,需要更加准确且快速的病理检测方法,需要更多的探索来明确一步核酸扩增的实用性。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Lu, K.H. and Broaddus, R.R. (2020) Endometrial Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383, 2053-2064.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1514010
[3] Oaknin, A., Bosse, T.J., Creutzberg, C.L., et al. (2022) Endometrial Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Annals of Oncology: Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 33, 860-877.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.009
[4] Abu-Rustum, N.R., Yashar, C.M., Bradley, K., et al. (2021) NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Uterine Neoplasms, Version 3. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN, 19, 888-895.
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.0038
[5] Gu, Y., Cheng, H., Zong, L., et al. (2020) Operative and Oncological Outcomes Comparing Sentinel Node Mapping and Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Cancer Staging: Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis. Frontiers in Oncology, 10, Article ID: 580128.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.580128
[6] Pölcher, M., Rottmann, M., Brugger, S., et al. (2019) Lymph Node Dissection in Endometrial Cancer and Clinical Outcome: A Population-Based Study in 5546 Patients. Gynecologic Oncology, 154, 65-71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.002
[7] Zorzato, P.C., Bosco, M., Franchi, M.P., et al. (2021) Sentinel Lymph Node for Endometrial Cancer Treatment: Review of the Literature. Minerva Medica, 112, 70-80.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.20.07117-7
[8] Geppert, B., Lönnerfors, C., Bollino, M., et al. (2018) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer-Feasibility, Safety and Lymphatic Complications. Gynecologic Oncology, 148, 491-498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.12.017
[9] Liu, C.Y., Elias, K.M., Howitt, B.E., et al. (2017) Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping Reduces Practice Pattern Variations in Surgical Staging for Endometrial Adenocarcinoma: A before and after Study. Gynecologic Oncology, 145, 248-255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.012
[10] Matsuo, K., Klar, M., Khetan, V.U., et al. (2022) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Stage II Endometrial Cancer: Recent Utilization and Outcome in the United States. Gynecologic Oncology, 164, 46-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.10.085
[11] Glaser, G., Dinoi, G., Multinu, F., et al. (2021) Reduced Lymphedema after Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy versus Lymphadenectomy for Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 31, 85-91.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001924
[12] Zhai, L., Zhang, X., Cui, M., et al. (2021) Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Frontiers in Oncology, 11, Article ID: 701758.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.701758
[13] Marchocki, Z., Cusimano, M.C. and Ferguson, S.E. (2022) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in High-Grade Endometrial Cancer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 226, 867-868.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.02.013
[14] Marchocki, Z., Cusimano, M.., Clarfield, L., et al. (2021) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in High-Grade Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Performance Characteristics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 225, 367.e1-367.e39.
[15] Ye, L., Li, S., Lu, W., et al. (2019) A Prospective Study of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping for Endometrial Cancer: Is It Effective in High-Risk Subtypes? The Oncologist, 24, E1381-E1387.
https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0113
[16] Nagar, H., Wietek, N., Goodall, R.J., et al. (2021) Sentinel Node Biopsy for Diagnosis of Lymph Node Involvement in Endometrial Cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD013021.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013021.pub2
[17] Zuo, J., Wu, L.Y., Cheng, M., et al. (2019) Comparison Study of Laparoscopic Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Carcinoma Using Carbon Nanoparticles and Lymphatic Pathway Verification. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 26, 1125-1132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.11.002
[18] Backes, F.J., Cohen, D., Salani, R., et al. (2019) Prospective Clinical Trial of Robotic Sentinel Lymph Node Assessment with Isosulfane Blue (ISB) and Indocyanine Green (ICG) in Endometrial Cancer and the Impact of Ultrastaging (NCT01818739). Gynecologic Oncology, 153, 496-499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.03.252
[19] Cabrera, S., Barahona-Orpinell, M., Almansa-González, C., et al. (2021) Combined Use of ICG and Technetium Does Not Improve Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Endometrial Cancer: Results of the COMBITEC Study. Gynecologic Oncology, 162, 32-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.002
[20] Cusimano, M.C., Vicus, D., Pulman, K., et al. (2021) Assessment of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs Lymphadenectomy for Intermediate-and High-Grade Endometrial Cancer Staging. JAMA Surgery, 156, 157-164.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5060
[21] Maramai, M., Achilarre, M.T., Aloisi, A., et al. (2021) Cervical Re-Injection of Indocyanine Green to Improve Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 162, 38-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.026
[22] Farazestanian, M., Yousefi, Z., Zarifmahmoudi, L., et al. (2019) Concordance between Intracervical and Fundal Injections for Sentinel Node Mapping in Patients with Endometrial Cancer? A Study Using Intracervical Radiotracer and Fundal Blue Dye Injections. Clinical Nuclear Medicine, 44, E123-E127.
https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002412
[23] Ditto, A., Casarin, I., Pinelli, C., et al. (2020) Hysteroscopic versus Cervical Injection for Sentinel Node Detection in Endometrial Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial from the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) Study Group. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 140, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.08.030
[24] Persson, J., Geppert, B., Lönnerfors, C., et al. (2017) Description of a Reproducible Anatomically Based Surgical Algorithm for Detection of Pelvic Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 147, 120-125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.131
[25] Persson, J., Salehi, S., Bollino, M., et al. (2019) Pelvic Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (SHREC-Trial)—The Final Step towards a Paradigm Shift in Surgical Staging. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 116, 77-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.025
[26] García Pineda, V., Hernández Gutiérrez, A., Gracia Segovia, M., et al. (2020) Low-Volume Nodal Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer: Risk Factors and Prognostic Significance. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, Article No. 1999.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061999
[27] Ghoniem, K., Larish, A.M., Dinoi, G., et al. (2021) Oncologic Outcomes of Endometrial Cancer in Patients with Low-Volume Metastasis in the Sentinel Lymph Nodes: An International Multi-Institutional Study. Gynecologic Oncology, 162, 590-598.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.031
[28] Backes, F.J., Felix, A.S., Plante, M., et al. (2021) Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Isolated Tumor Cells (ITCs) in Otherwise Stage I/II Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer: to Treat or Not to Treat? Gynecologic Oncology, 161, 347-352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.02.017
[29] Concin, N., Matias-Guiu, X., Vergote, I., et al. (2021) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 154, 327-353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.018
[30] Sims, T.T. and Boruta, D.M. (2021) Sentinel Lymph Node Isolated Tumor Cells in Early Staged Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer: Utility or Futility? Gynecologic Oncology, 161, 331-332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.006
[31] Goebel, E.A., St Laurent, J.D., Nucci, M.R., et al. (2020) Retrospective Detection of Isolated Tumor Cells by Immunohistochemistry in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Performed for Endometrial Carcinoma: Is There Clinical Significance? International Journal of Gynecological Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 30, 291-298.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000934
[32] Bogani, G., Mariani, A., Paolini, B., et al. (2019) Low-Volume Disease in Endometrial Cancer: The Role of Micrometastasis and Isolated Tumor Cells. Gynecologic Oncology, 153, 670-675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.02.027
[33] Diestro, M.D., Berjón, A., Zapardiel, I., et al. (2021) One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (OSNA) of Sentinel Lymph Node in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Spanish Multicenter Study (ENDO-OSNA). Cancers, 13, Article No. 4465.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13174465
[34] Kosťun, J., Pešta, M., Sláma, J., et al. (2019) One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification vs Ultrastaging in the Detection of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer Patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 119, 361-369.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25322
[35] Togami, S., Ushiwaka, T., Kitazono, I., et al. (2022) One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (OSNA) Assay for Detecting Lymph Node Metastasis in Cervical and Endometrial Cancer: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 33, E11.
https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e11
[36] Angeles, M.A., Martínez-Gómez, C., Migliorelli, F., et al. (2018) Novel Surgical Strategies in the Treatment of Gynecological Malignancies. Current Treatment Options in Oncology, 19, Article No. 73.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-018-0582-5
[37] Pineda, V.G., Zapardiel, I., Gracia, M., et al. (2021) Avoiding Full Lymphadenectomies in Intermediate-and High-Risk Endometrial Cancer by Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Implementation. Frontiers in Oncology, 11, Article ID: 654285.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.654285
[38] Pijnenborg, J.M.A., Reijnen, C., Vergeldt, T.F.M., et al. (2020) Optimizing the Treatment Algorithm for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer. Seminars in Oncology, 47, 138-143.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.04.006
[39] Kogan, L., Matanes, E., Wissing, M., et al. (2020) The Added Value of Sentinel Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 158, 84-91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.687
[40] Torrent, A., Amengual, J., Sampol, C.M., et al. (2022) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer: Dual Injection, Dual Tracer—A Multidisciplinary Exhaustive Approach to Nodal Staging. Cancers, 14, Article No. 929.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040929