Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Previous Conization on Patient Eligibility of Sentinel Lymph Node Detection for Early Invasive Cervical Cancer
  1. Hidenori Kato, MD, PhD*,
  2. Yukiharu Todo, MD, PhD*,
  3. Shin-ichiro Minobe, MD, PhD*,
  4. Yoshihiro Suzuki, MD*,
  5. Makiko Nakatani, MD*,
  6. Yoko Ohba, MD, PhD*,
  7. Katsusige Yamashiro, MD, PhD and
  8. Kazuhira Okamoto, MD, PhD*
  1. *Divisions of Gynecologic Oncology and
  2. Divisions of Pathology, National Hospital Organization, Hokkaido Cancer Center, Sapporo, Japan.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Hidenori Kato, MD, PhD, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, National Hospital Organization, Hokkaido Cancer Center, 4-2, Kikusui, Shiroishi-Ku, Sapporo 003-0804, Japan. E-mail: hidekato{at}


Objective: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection has been accepted as a common strategy to preserve the quality of life of the patients with gynecologic cancers. However, the feasibility of SLN detection after conization is not yet clarified. Accuracy of SLN after conization was evaluated.

Methods: Eighteen cases with prior conization (cone group) and 32 cases without conization (noncone group), all of which belonged to IB1 except 1 case in IA stage, underwent SLN detection. Systemic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was coincidently performed for the estimation of negative and positive predictive values.

Results: Detection rate in which at least unilateral nodes were identified or bilaterally identified was 100% and 72.2% in the cone group, 90.6% and 71.9% in the noncone group, respectively. The average number of the detected SLN was 2.4 in the cone group and 2.1 in the noncone group. Negative and positive predictive value was 100% in both groups. On the distribution of sentinel node stations, most of the detected nodes were internal iliac and obturator node in both groups. Less frequent detection was observed in superficial common iliac node (5.4% in the cone group, 3.1% in the noncone group), external iliac node (2.7% and 9.5%), and parauterine artery node (5.4% and 1.6%).

In both groups, no other lymph nodes were identified as SLN except 1 case in the cone group with the node in cardinal ligament.

Conclusions: No significant difference was observed on detection rate, predictive value, and the distribution of sentinel node between the cone and noncone groups. Sentinel lymph node detection after conization can be performed with a certain reliability.

  • Sentinel lymph node
  • Uterine cervical cancer
  • Conization

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.