ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025
Analysis of Sentinel Lymph Node Adoption Compared to Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Staging Early Endometrial Cancer at a Tertiary Center: An Ambispective Study.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact of changing endometrial carcinoma staging from systematic lymph node dissection to the sentinel lymph node approach.
methodsThis is an ambispective study including patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) limited to the uterus (FIGO 2018 IA/IB). From December 2015 to October 2021, a group of patients underwent systematic staging with lymph node dissection (LND). From December 2021 to April 2024, another group of patients underwent surgical staging with the sentinel lymph node-indocyanine green (SLN) algorithm and pathology ultrastaging analisys. The groups were matched (1 LND: 1 SLN) based on age, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, tumor size, and myometrial invasion. The primary endpoints were lymph node involvement, length of surgery, and complications. Complications were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0.
resultsTwo hundred fifty-seven patients were surgically treated during the study period (156 in the LND cohort, 101 in the SLN cohort). Propensity score matching revealed two equivalent groups containing 84 patients each. The rate of positive lymph nodes was similar between the LND group (3.6%) and the SLN group (8.3%) (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 0.61-9.84; p = 0.205). The length of surgery was significantly lower in the SLN group (152.2 ± 51.9 min) compared to the LND group (304 ± 77.8 min) (p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss greater than 100 mL was significantly lower in the SLN group (9.5%) compared to the LND group (29.8%) (p < 0.001). CTCAE grades requiring intervention (grades 3, 4, and 5) were higher in the LND group (14.3%) compared to the SLN group (4.8%) (p = 0.049).
conclusionThe transition from LND to SLN approach was similar compared to systematic lymphadenectomy, allowing the reduction of surgical length, blood loss and severity of complications without compromising surgical complications and lymph node positivity.
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.