-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Risk of micrometastases in non-sentinel pelvic lymph nodes in cervical cancer
D. Cibula, M. Zikan, J. Slama, D. Fischerova, R. Kocian, A. Germanova, A. Burgetova, L. Dusek, P. Dundr, M. Gregova, K. Nemejcova,
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lymfatické metastázy MeSH
- mikrometastázy * MeSH
- nádory děložního čípku patologie MeSH
- riziko MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
OBJECTIVE: A high sensitivity of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) for pelvic lymph node (LN) staging has been repeatedly shown in patients with cervical cancer. However, since only SLN are evaluated by pathologic ultrastaging, the risk of small metastases, including small macrometastases (MAC) and micrometastases (MIC), in non-SLN is unknown. This can be a critical limitation for the oncological safety of abandoning a pelvic lymphadenectomy. METHODS: The patients selected for the study had cervical cancer and were at high risk for LN positivity (stage IB-IIA, biggest diameter≥3cm). The patients had no enlarged or suspicious LN on pre-operative imaging; SLNs were detected bilaterally and were negative on intra-operative pathologic evaluation. All SLNs and all other pelvic LNs were examined using an ultrastaging protocol and processed completely in intervals of 150μm. RESULTS: In all, 17 patients were enrolled into the study. The mean number of removed pelvic LNs was 30. A total of 573 pelvic LNs were examined through ultrastaging protocol (5762 slides). Metastatic involvement was detected in SLNs of 8 patients (1× MAC; 4× MIC; 3× ITC) and in non-SLNs in 2 patients (2× MIC). In both cases with positive pelvic non-SLNs, there were found MIC in ipsilateral SLNs. No metastasis in pelvic non-SLNs was found by pathologic ultrastaging in any of the patients with negative SLN Side-specific sensitivity was 100% for MAC and MIC. There was one case of ITC detected in non-SLN, negative ipsilateral SLN, but MIC in SLN on the other pelvic side. CONCLUSIONS: After processing all pelvic LNs by pathologic ultrastaging, there were found no false-negative cases of positive non-SLN (MAC or MIC) and negative SLN. SLN ultrastaging reached 100% sensitivity for the presence of both MAC and MIC in pelvic LNs.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc17023849
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20170831111929.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 170720s2016 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.101 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)27421753
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Cibula, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: d_cibula@yahoo.com.
- 245 10
- $a Risk of micrometastases in non-sentinel pelvic lymph nodes in cervical cancer / $c D. Cibula, M. Zikan, J. Slama, D. Fischerova, R. Kocian, A. Germanova, A. Burgetova, L. Dusek, P. Dundr, M. Gregova, K. Nemejcova,
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVE: A high sensitivity of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) for pelvic lymph node (LN) staging has been repeatedly shown in patients with cervical cancer. However, since only SLN are evaluated by pathologic ultrastaging, the risk of small metastases, including small macrometastases (MAC) and micrometastases (MIC), in non-SLN is unknown. This can be a critical limitation for the oncological safety of abandoning a pelvic lymphadenectomy. METHODS: The patients selected for the study had cervical cancer and were at high risk for LN positivity (stage IB-IIA, biggest diameter≥3cm). The patients had no enlarged or suspicious LN on pre-operative imaging; SLNs were detected bilaterally and were negative on intra-operative pathologic evaluation. All SLNs and all other pelvic LNs were examined using an ultrastaging protocol and processed completely in intervals of 150μm. RESULTS: In all, 17 patients were enrolled into the study. The mean number of removed pelvic LNs was 30. A total of 573 pelvic LNs were examined through ultrastaging protocol (5762 slides). Metastatic involvement was detected in SLNs of 8 patients (1× MAC; 4× MIC; 3× ITC) and in non-SLNs in 2 patients (2× MIC). In both cases with positive pelvic non-SLNs, there were found MIC in ipsilateral SLNs. No metastasis in pelvic non-SLNs was found by pathologic ultrastaging in any of the patients with negative SLN Side-specific sensitivity was 100% for MAC and MIC. There was one case of ITC detected in non-SLN, negative ipsilateral SLN, but MIC in SLN on the other pelvic side. CONCLUSIONS: After processing all pelvic LNs by pathologic ultrastaging, there were found no false-negative cases of positive non-SLN (MAC or MIC) and negative SLN. SLN ultrastaging reached 100% sensitivity for the presence of both MAC and MIC in pelvic LNs.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a lymfatické metastázy $7 D008207
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a mikrometastázy $7 D061206
- 650 _2
- $a riziko $7 D012306
- 650 _2
- $a nádory děložního čípku $x patologie $7 D002583
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Zikan, M $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Slama, J $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Fischerova, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Kocian, R $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Germanova, A $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Burgetova, A $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Dusek, L $u Institute for Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Dundr, P $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Gregova, M $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Nemejcova, K $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001958 $t Gynecologic oncology $x 1095-6859 $g Roč. 143, č. 1 (2016), s. 83-6
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27421753 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20170720 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20170831112519 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1239530 $s 984762
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2016 $b 143 $c 1 $d 83-6 $e 20160712 $i 1095-6859 $m Gynecologic oncology $n Gynecol Oncol $x MED00001958
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20170720