• 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,

. 2016 ; 143 (1) : 83-6. [pub] 20160712

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17023849

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...