Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30887757›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2019

Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial and cervical cancer: a survey of practices and attitudes in gynecologic oncologists.

Laura Moulton Chambers, Roberto Vargas, Chad M Michener

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Prognosis of isolated tumor cells and use of molecular classification in early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura Moulton ChambersDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. Laurajmoulton@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-7060
Roberto VargasDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4262-7824
Chad M MichenerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5170-6626
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH ONCOLOGY TRAINING GRANTK12CA076917 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI GERSON, STANTON L. · 1997 to 2022
$14.2M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA076917
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine patterns among gynecologic oncologists in sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) for endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC).

methodsA online survey assessing the practice of SLNM, including incidence, patterns of usage, and reasons for non-use was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology candidate and full members in August 2017. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis was performed.

resultsThe 1,117 members were surveyed and 198 responses (17.7%) were received. Of the 70% (n=139) performing SLNM, the majority reported use for both CC and EC (64.0%) or EC alone (33.1%). In those using SLNM in EC, the majority (86.6%) performed SLNM in >50% of cases for all patients (56.3%), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (43.0%) and 2 (42.2%). Reported benefits of SLNM in EC were reduced surgical morbidity (89.6%), lymphedema (85.2%), and operative time (63.7%). Among those using SLNM for CC, the majority (73.1%) did so in >50% of cases. In EC, 77.2% and 21.3% reported that micro-metastatic disease (0.2-2.0 cm) and isolated tumor cells (ITCs) should be treated as node positive, respectively. In those not using SLNM for EC (n=64) and CC (n=105), concerns were regarding efficacy of SLNM and lack of training. When queried regarding training, 73.7% felt that SLNM would impact skill in full lymphadenectomy (LND).

conclusionThe SLNM is utilized frequently among gynecologic oncologists for EC and CC staging. Common reasons for non-uptake include uncertainty of current data, lack of training and technology. Concerns exist regarding impact of SLNM in fellowship training of LND.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPractice Patterns, Physicians'Sentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAdultAgedEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGynecologyHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOncologistsSentinel Lymph NodeCervical CancerEndometrial CancerLymphadenectomySentinel Lymph Node

Identifiers

PMID30887757
PMCPMC6424853
OpenAlexW2902014527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.