ArticleCancer medicine2025
One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification Analysis of Sentinel Lymphatic Nodes in Endometrial Cancer Patients (EU-OSNA): A European Multicenter Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis European multicenter study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) as the primary endpoint by comparing this method with ultrastaging for the detection of sentinel node metastases in endometrial cancer patients.
methodsEuropean multicenter prospective performance study including data from 10 centers across 5 European countries. Each node, upon removal of surrounding adipose tissue, was sliced in 2 mm thick sections and equally distributed between ultrastaging and OSNA. OSNA is based on cytokeratin-19 detection, serving as a metastatic marker. Sensitivity, specificity, and concordance of OSNA versus ultrastaging were calculated at nodal and patient levels.
resultsSeven hundred forty-three sentinel nodes from 366 patients were evaluated. Compared to ultrastaging, OSNA showed concordance, specificity, and sensitivity of 95%, 97.6%, and 41.2% at the nodal level and 93.2%, 96.2%, and 47.8% at the patient level, respectively. In reverse analysis, when compared to OSNA, the ultrastaging showed a sensitivity of 45.2% and 45.8% at the nodal and patient levels, respectively. Irrespective of the size of metastasis, both methods agreed in 14 positive and 692 negative nodes (95%). This resulted in 24 (6.56%) patients with a positive OSNA and 23 (6.28%) patients with a positive ultrastaging finding. The number of discordant nodes was 47 (6.33%), 40 (85.1%) of them were micrometastases. Benign epithelial inclusions occurred in 4 nodes (0.54%) and 4 patients (1.09%).
conclusionCompared with ultrastaging, OSNA showed high concordance and specificity, but sensitivity was low-similar to ultrastaging compared with OSNA as an index test in reverse analysis. The main limitation in comparing the two approaches by splitting the sentinel nodes was the tissue allocation bias. As reflected in the number of discordant cases, especially at the micrometastases level. The distribution of patients with node metastases was comparable between the two methods at both the nodal and patient levels.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register: Nr. DRKS00021520.
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.