Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28159465›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2017

A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study.

Emma C Rossi, Lynn D Kowalski, Jennifer Scalici, Leigh Cantrell, Kevin Schuler, Rabbie K Hanna, Michael Method, Melissa Ade, Anastasia Ivanova, John F Boggess

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 347 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
347citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
72.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01673022 nacompletednot on this map

Determining the Sensitivity of Sentinel Lymph Nodes Identified With Robotic Fluorescence Imaging for Detecting Metastatic Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2012 to 2017Enrolled430ConditionsEndometrial Cancer, Cervical CancerArmsIC Green
NCT03366051 naunknown statusnot on this map

Sentinel Node Mapping Versus Sentinel Node Mapping With Systematic Lymphadenectomy in High Risk Endometrial Cancer: a Open Label, Non-inferiority, Randomized Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAC Camargo Cancer CenterRan2017 to 2024Enrolled178ConditionsEndometrial Cancer, Lymph Node MetastasesArmsSentinel Node Mapping, Lymphadenectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

347 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 883 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

287 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Emma C RossiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: emma_rossi@med.unc.edu.
Lynn D KowalskiLas Vegas Institute for Robotic Surgery at Mountain View Hospital, NV, USA.
Jennifer ScaliciUniversity of South Alabama Mitchell Cancer Institute, Mobile, AL, USA.
Leigh CantrellDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Kevin SchulerTriHealth Tristate Gynecologic Oncology, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Rabbie K HannaDepartment of Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Michael MethodDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Melissa AdeDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Anastasia IvanovaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
John F BoggessDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USHenry Ford Health System · USLas Vegas Institute · USTriHealth · USUniversity of South Alabama · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSentinel-lymph-node mapping has been advocated as an alternative staging technique for endometrial cancer. The aim of this study was to measure the sensitivity and negative predictive value of sentinel-lymph-node mapping compared with the gold standard of complete lymphadenectomy in detecting metastatic disease for endometrial cancer.

methodsIn the FIRES multicentre, prospective, cohort study patients with clinical stage 1 endometrial cancer of all histologies and grades undergoing robotic staging were eligible for study inclusion. Patients received a standardised cervical injection of indocyanine green and sentinel-lymph-node mapping followed by pelvic lymphadenectomy with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy. 18 surgeons from ten centres (tertiary academic and community non-academic) in the USA participated in the trial. Negative sentinel lymph nodes (by haematoxylin and eosin staining on sections) were ultra-staged with immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin. The primary endpoint, sensitivity of the sentinel-lymph-node-based detection of metastatic disease, was defined as the proportion of patients with node-positive disease with successful sentinel-lymph-node mapping who had metastatic disease correctly identified in the sentinel lymph node. Patients who had mapping of at least one sentinel lymph node were included in the primary analysis (per protocol). All patients who received study intervention (injection of dye), regardless of mapping result, were included as part of the assessment of mapping and in the safety analysis in an intention-to-treat manner. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01673022 and is completed and closed.

findingsBetween Aug 1, 2012, and Oct 20, 2015, 385 patients were enrolled. Sentinel-lymph-node mapping with complete pelvic lymphadenectomy was done in 340 patients and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was done in 196 (58%) of these patients. 293 (86%) patients had successful mapping of at least one sentinel lymph node. 41 (12%) patients had positive nodes, 36 of whom had at least one mapped sentinel lymph node. Nodal metastases were identified in the sentinel lymph nodes of 35 (97%) of these 36 patients, yielding a sensitivity to detect node-positive disease of 97·2% (95% CI 85·0-100), and a negative predictive value of 99·6% (97·9-100). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events or serious adverse events were postoperative neurological disorders (4 patients) and postoperative respiratory distress or failure (4 patients). 22 patients had serious adverse events, with one related to the study intervention: a ureteral injury incurred during sentinel-lymph-node dissection.

interpretationSentinel lymph nodes identified with indocyanine green have a high degree of diagnostic accuracy in detecting endometrial cancer metastases and can safely replace lymphadenectomy in the staging of endometrial cancer. Sentinel lymph node biopsy will not identify metastases in 3% of patients with node-positive disease, but has the potential to expose fewer patients to the morbidity of a complete lymphadenectomy.

fundingIndiana University Health, Indiana University Health Simon Cancer Center, and the Indiana University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, Clear CellAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinosarcomaColoring AgentsCystadenocarcinoma, SerousEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIndocyanine GreenLymph Node ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingColoring AgentsIndocyanine Green

Identifiers

PMID28159465
OpenAlexW2583455670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.