Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Laparoscopic sentinel node mapping with intracervical indocyanine green injection for endometrial cancer: the SENTIFAIL study – a multicentric analysis of predictors of failed mapping
  1. Giulio Sozzi1,
  2. Francesco Fanfani2,3,
  3. Roberto Berretta4,
  4. Vito Andrea Capozzi4,
  5. Stefano Uccella5,
  6. Natalina Buono1,
  7. Vincenzo Giallombardo1,
  8. Mariano Catello Di Donna1,
  9. Giorgia Monterossi2,
  10. Stefano Restaino2,
  11. Ilaria Capasso3,
  12. Giorgia Dinoi3,
  13. Giovanni Scambia2,3 and
  14. Vito Chiantera1
  1. 1Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
  2. 2Dipartimento della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  3. 3Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  4. 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy
  5. 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nuovo Ospedale degli Infermi Dipartimento di Oncologia di Biella, Biella, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Giulio Sozzi, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo 90133, Italy; giuliosozzi{at}


Objectives Laparoscopy is commonly used for endometrial cancer treatment, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has become the standard procedure for nodal assessment. Despite the standardization of the technique, there is no definitive data regarding its failure rate. The objective of this study is to identify factors associated with unsuccessful SLN mapping in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic SLN mapping after intracervical indocyanine green (ICG) injection.

Methods We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of endometrial cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic SLN mapping with intracervical ICG injection, in four oncological referral centers from January 2016 to July 2019. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven endometrial cancer, total laparoscopic approach, and intracervical ICG injection. Exclusion criteria were evidence of lymph node involvement or extrauterine disease at pre-operative imaging, synchronous invasive cancer, the use of tracers different from ICG, and the use of neoadjuvant treatment. Bilateral and failed bilateral SLN mapping groups were compared for clinical and pathological features. In patients with an unsuccessful procedure, side-specific lymphadenectomy was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of failure.

Results A total of 376 patients were included in the study. The overall bilateral and unilateral SLN detection rates were 96.3%, 76.3%, and 20.0% respectively. The failed bilateral mapping detection rate was 23.7%. The median number of sentinel nodes removed was 2.2 (range, 0–5). After multivariate analysis, lymph vascular space involvement [OR 2.4 (1.04–1.12), P=0.003], non-endometrioid histology [OR 3.0 (1.43–6.29), P=0.004], and intraoperative finding of enlarged lymph node [OR 2.3 (1.01–5.31), P=0.045] were identified as independent predictors of failure of SLN mapping.

Conclusion Lymph vascular space involvement, non-endometrioid histology, and intra-operative finding of enlarged lymph nodes were identified as independent risk factors for unsuccessful mapping in patients undergoing laparoscopic SLN mapping.

  • SLN and lympadenectomy
  • sentinel lymph node
  • endometrial neoplasms
  • uterine cancer
  • uterine neoplasms

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.


  • Twitter @frafanfani

  • Contributors GS, FF, RB and VC: conception and design of the study. GS, FF, SU, NB and VC: manuscript preparation. GS, VAC, SU, NB, MD, GM, SR, IC and GDN: data collection. GS, VAC, SU, NB, VG, MD, GM, SR, IC and GDN: patient recruitment. GS, FF, RB, GiSc and VC: data analysis and interpretation. GS and VG: statistical analysis. GS, FF, RB, SU, GiSc and VC: responsible surgeon. GiSc: conception and design of the study.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.