open access

Vol 90, No 1 (2019)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2019-01-31
Get Citation

The impact of low volume lymph node metastases and stage migration after pathologic ultrastaging of non-sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage cervical cancer: a study of 54 patients with 4.2 years of follow up

Marcin Sniadecki, Dariusz Grzegorz Wydra, Szymon Wojtylak, Ewa Wycinka, Marcin Liro, Nikola Sniadecka, Agnieszka Mrozinska, Sambor Sawicki
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2019.0004
·
Pubmed: 30756367
·
Ginekol Pol 2019;90(1):20-30.

open access

Vol 90, No 1 (2019)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2019-01-31

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the significance of pathologic ultrastaging (PU) of sentinel (SLN) and non-sentinel (nSLN) lymph nodes (LNs) and the influence on cancer staging in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer.

Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted with 54 patients divided into two equal-sized groups. In test group (n1), at least one SLN/patient was detected with blue dye. All excised LNs in this group were subjected to PU (4 μm slices/150 μm intervals) with hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemistry (AE1-AE3 antibodies). In none of the control group (n2) was PU performed, but in 2 patients SLN concept was performed. Patients in both groups underwent radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. The effect of PU was expressed in puTNM and compared with both standard pTNM and FIGO systems. The influence of PU on patients’ disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results: In total, 516 LNs were extracted (66 SLNs, 36% bilaterally). Micrometastases (MIC) or isolated tumor cells (ITC) were detected in 34 of the 482 LNs (7.1%), including 16 MICs and 9 ITC in non-SLNs. False negative rates were: 3.7%/side-specific, and 7.4%/both sides. The use of PU resulted in stage change in 2 cases (N and M status change), FIGO stage did not changed. No PU impact on DFS or OS was observed.

Conclusions: The risk of TNM stage migration in early cervical cancer is low, is more likely in inattentively evaluated patients, and has indeterminate prognostic and predictive value. Selection of cases with cT ≤ 2 cm and cN0 is sufficient to avoid the risk of improper staging.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the significance of pathologic ultrastaging (PU) of sentinel (SLN) and non-sentinel (nSLN) lymph nodes (LNs) and the influence on cancer staging in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer.

Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted with 54 patients divided into two equal-sized groups. In test group (n1), at least one SLN/patient was detected with blue dye. All excised LNs in this group were subjected to PU (4 μm slices/150 μm intervals) with hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemistry (AE1-AE3 antibodies). In none of the control group (n2) was PU performed, but in 2 patients SLN concept was performed. Patients in both groups underwent radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. The effect of PU was expressed in puTNM and compared with both standard pTNM and FIGO systems. The influence of PU on patients’ disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results: In total, 516 LNs were extracted (66 SLNs, 36% bilaterally). Micrometastases (MIC) or isolated tumor cells (ITC) were detected in 34 of the 482 LNs (7.1%), including 16 MICs and 9 ITC in non-SLNs. False negative rates were: 3.7%/side-specific, and 7.4%/both sides. The use of PU resulted in stage change in 2 cases (N and M status change), FIGO stage did not changed. No PU impact on DFS or OS was observed.

Conclusions: The risk of TNM stage migration in early cervical cancer is low, is more likely in inattentively evaluated patients, and has indeterminate prognostic and predictive value. Selection of cases with cT ≤ 2 cm and cN0 is sufficient to avoid the risk of improper staging.

Get Citation

Keywords

cervical cancer; ultrastaging; non-sentinel node; micrometastases

About this article
Title

The impact of low volume lymph node metastases and stage migration after pathologic ultrastaging of non-sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage cervical cancer: a study of 54 patients with 4.2 years of follow up

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 90, No 1 (2019)

Pages

20-30

Published online

2019-01-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.2019.0004

Pubmed

30756367

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2019;90(1):20-30.

Keywords

cervical cancer
ultrastaging
non-sentinel node
micrometastases

Authors

Marcin Sniadecki
Dariusz Grzegorz Wydra
Szymon Wojtylak
Ewa Wycinka
Marcin Liro
Nikola Sniadecka
Agnieszka Mrozinska
Sambor Sawicki

References (36)
  1. Riveros M, Garcia R, Cabañas R. Lymphadenography of the dorsal lymphatics of the penis. Technique and results. Cancer. 1967; 20(11): 2026–2031.
  2. Tanis PJ, Nieweg OE, Valdés Olmos RA, et al. History of sentinel node and validation of the technique. Breast Cancer Res. 2001; 3(2): 109–112.
  3. Levenback CF, Ali S, Coleman RL, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in women with squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(31): 3786–3791.
  4. Diab Y. Sentinel Lymph Nodes Mapping in Cervical Cancer a Comprehensive Review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017; 27(1): 154–158.
  5. Abu-Rustum NR. Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: a modern approach to surgical staging. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014; 12(2): 288–297.
  6. Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 124(3): 496–501.
  7. Dargent D, Martin X, Roy M. Identification of a sentinel node with laparoscopy in cervical cancer. Proc SGO Meeting 2000, abstract. ; 44: 128.
  8. Bats AS, Mathevet P, Buenerd A, et al. The sentinel node technique detects unexpected drainage pathways and allows nodal ultrastaging in early cervical cancer: insights from the multicenter prospective SENTICOL study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(2): 413–422.
  9. Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, et al. Bilateral ultrastaging of sentinel lymph node in cervical cancer: Lowering the false-negative rate and improving the detection of micrometastasis. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 127(3): 462–466.
  10. Slama J, Dundr P, Dusek L, et al. Sentinel lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancers and impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125(2): 303–306.
  11. Rossi PJ, Horowitz IR, Johnstone PAS, et al. Lymphadenectomy for patients with cervical cancer: is it of value? J Surg Oncol. 2009; 100(5): 404–406.
  12. NCCN Cervical cancer guidelines. Version II.2018; Available from. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf; NCCN.org. (2018.11.10).
  13. https://www.esgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ESGO_Cervical-Cancer_A6.pdf (2018.11.10).
  14. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, et al. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143 Suppl 2: 22–36.
  15. Altgassen C, Hertel H, Brandstädt A, et al. AGO Study Group. Multicenter validation study of the sentinel lymph node concept in cervical cancer: AGO Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(18): 2943–2951.
  16. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, et al. Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(12): 1814–1824.
  17. Driscoll DO, Halpenny D, Johnston C, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is of limited value in primary staging of early stage cervical cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40(1): 127–133.
  18. Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1974; 44(2): 265–272.
  19. van Dam PA, Hauspy J, Vanderheyden T, et al. Intraoperative sentinel node identification with Technetium-99m-labeled nanocolloid in patients with cancer of the uterine cervix: a feasibility study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003; 13(2): 182–186.
  20. Wydra D, Sawicki S, Wojtylak S, et al. Sentinel node identification in cervical cancer patients undergoing transperitoneal radical hysterectomy: a study of 100 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(2): 649–654.
  21. van de Lande J, Davelaar EM, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, et al. SCC-Ag, lymph node metastases and sentinel node procedure in early stage squamous cell cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112(1): 119–125.
  22. Barranger E, Grahek D, Cortez A, et al. Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node procedure using a combination of patent blue and radioisotope in women with cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2003; 97(12): 3003–3009.
  23. Sniadecki M, Sawicki S, Wojtylak S, et al. Clinical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of detecting micrometastatic lymph node disease in sentinel and non-sentinel lyph nodes in cervical cancer: outcomes and implications. Ginekol Pol. 2014; 85(1): 10–13.
  24. Lou Hm, Zhu T, Shao F, et al. [Detection of micrometastases and its clinical significance in sentinel and non-sentinel lymph nodes from early cervical carcinoma]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2013; 35(6): 434–438.
  25. Ogawa S, Kobayashi H, Amada S, et al. Sentinel node detection with (99m)Tc phytate alone is satisfactory for cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010; 15(1): 52–58.
  26. Martínez A, Zerdoud S, Mery E, et al. Hybrid imaging by SPECT/CT for sentinel lymph node detection in patients with cancer of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 119(3): 431–435.
  27. Okamoto S, Niikura H, Yoshinaga K, et al. Detection of micrometastases in cervical cancer with a system that evaluates both sentinel and nonsentinel lymph nodes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009; 19(4): 708–711.
  28. Fregnani JH, Latorre MR, Novik PR, et al. Assessment of pelvic lymph node micrometastatic disease in stages IB and IIA of carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(3): 1188–1194.
  29. Popa I, Plante M, Renaud MC, et al. Negative sentinel lymph node accurately predicts negative status of pelvic lymph nodes in uterine cervix carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 103(2): 649–653.
  30. Marchiolè P, Buénerd A, Scoazec JY, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not accurate in predicting lymph node status for patients with cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2004; 100(10): 2154–2159.
  31. Cibula D, Zikan M, Slama J, et al. Risk of micrometastases in non-sentinel pelvic lymph nodes in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 143(1): 83–86.
  32. Slama J, Dundr P, Dusek L, et al. High false negative rate of frozen section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129(2): 384–388.
  33. Zaal A, Zweemer RP, Zikán M, et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy improves survival in patients with cervical cancer with low-volume disease in the sentinel node: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014; 24(2): 303–311.
  34. Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N, et al. Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1999; 85(7): 1547–1554.
  35. Meva J, Chaudhary RK, Bhaduri D, et al. Lacunae in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification for cervical carcinoma: observational study using TNM classification as comparator. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013; 23(6): 1071–1077.
  36. Hsu HC, Tai YJ, Chen YL, et al. Factors predicting parametrial invasion in patients with early-stage cervical carcinomas. PLoS One. 2018; 13(10): e0204950.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl