ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Is fluorometric sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer necessary?
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we collected perioperative and postoperative follow-up data from patients with endometrial cancer (EC) at different stages to evaluate the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in endometrial cancer surgery. Methods: A total of 186 endometrial cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy from January 2018 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into four groups. Group A comprised patients diagnosed with stage IA grade 1 and 2 endometrioid EC who underwent SLNB. Group B comprised patients with stage IA grade 1 and 2 endometrioid EC who did not undergo SLNB. Group C comprised patients with higher-grade endometrioid EC, wherein systematic lymph node dissection was performed based on SLNB results. Group D comprised patients with higher-grade endometrioid EC who did not undergo SLNB and instead underwent direct systematic lymph node dissection. Clinical, pathological data, and follow-up information for all patients were collected. Results: In Group A and B, SLNB was performed on 36 out of 67 patients with IA stage 1 and 2 endometrial cancer, yielding a SLN positivity rate of 5.6%. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups regarding perioperative outcomes and postoperative follow-up. Conversely, among 119 patients with higher-grade endometrial cancer, 52 underwent SLNB, with 20 patients exhibiting SLN positivity, resulting in a SLN positivity rate of 38.4%. However, the decision to undergo SLNB did not yield significant differences in perioperative outcomes and postoperative follow-up among these patients. Conclusion: For stage IA grade 1 and 2 endometrioid EC, the incidence of lymph node positivity is low, omitting SLNB in this subpopulation is a feasible option. In other stages of endometrioid EC, there is no significant difference in perioperative and postoperative follow-up data between patients undergoing routine systematic lymphadenectomy and those undergoing systematic lymphadenectomy based on SLNB results. Therefore, if SLNB is not available, the standard procedure of PLND remains an option to obtain information about lymph node status, despite the surgical complications associated with this procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.