Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40427105›Full record

ArticleCancers2025

Sentinel Node Biopsy Using Two Concurrent Labeling Techniques (Radioactive Tracer With/Without Blue Dye vs. Indocyanin Green-ICG) in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer Patients (TESLA-1): A Prospective Observational Study CEEGOG EX-02.

Maja Pakiz, David Cibula, Dariusz Grzegorz Wydra, Jaroslav Klat, Michal Zikan, Olga Matylevich, Renata Poncova, Anna Abacjew-Chmylko, Andrej Cokan, Martina Romanova and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

23 authors.

Maja PakizDepartment for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, University Medical Center Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-2758-9866
David CibulaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Dariusz Grzegorz WydraDepartment of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-204 Gdansk, Poland.
Jaroslav KlatDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine University of Ostrava, 70800 Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Michal ZikanDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Charles University-First Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Bulovka, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-5266-8895
Olga MatylevichGynecologic Oncology Division, NN Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, 223040 Minsk, Belarus.
Renata PoncovaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Anna Abacjew-ChmylkoDepartment of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-204 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0716-9664
Andrej CokanDepartment for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, University Medical Center Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-5134-4466
Martina RomanovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine University of Ostrava, 70800 Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9555-8546
Filip FrühaufDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Sambor SawickiDepartment of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-204 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6496-3282
Leyla Al MahdawiDepartment for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, University Medical Center Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
Roman KocianDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5896-4158
Zuzanna MascianicaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Endocrinological Gynecology, University Clinical Centre in Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland.
Jure KnezDepartment for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, University Medical Center Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-3543-5920
Lukas DostalekDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Paulina ZygowskaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Endocrinological Gynecology, University Clinical Centre in Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland.
Jiri SlamaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Marek MurawskiClinical Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland.
Daniela FischerovaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 18000 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-3218
Radoslaw OwczukDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3441-5162
Andraz DovnikDepartment for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, University Medical Center Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has been integrated into international guidelines for endometrial cancer, a standardized technique is still lacking. This study addresses whether the concurrent use of two tracers, technetium-99 (Tc) and indocyanine green (ICG), administered intracervically through distinct techniques, enhances the performance of SLN biopsies. As the blue dye is used routinely by some centers, it can be used alone; however, our analysis focused on only Tc and ICG (as is used in the majority of centers).

methodsA prospective multicentric observational study was designed to evaluate the unilateral detection rate, bilateral detection rates, sensitivity, and consistency of SLNs when using both tracers simultaneously in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.

resultsOur findings demonstrated that the simultaneous use of ICG and Tc significantly outperformed the use of either tracer alone. Unilateral detection rates were 69.2% for Tc, 84.9% for ICG, and 88.4% for both. Bilateral detection rates were 57.0% for Tc, 77.9% for ICG, and 83.6% for both. Additionally, the incidence of "empty pockets" was low with both tracers, at 2.7%. Notably, the concurrent application of both tracers identified instances where the Tc-labeled sentinel node differed from the ICG-labeled sentinel node.

conclusionsThe combined use of Tc and ICG in SLN biopsy for early-stage endometrial cancer significantly enhances detection rates and reduces the occurrence of "empty pockets", potentially decreasing the need for site-specific lymphadenectomy.

Indexed as

endometrial cancersentinel lymph nodetracer

Identifiers

PMID40427105
PMCPMC12109997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.