Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Sentinel lymph node sampling versus full lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: a SEER database analysis
  1. Chen Nahshon1,2,
  2. Yfat Kadan2,3,
  3. Ofer Lavie1,2,
  4. Ludmila Ostrovsky1,2 and
  5. Yakir Segev1,2
  1. 1Division for Gynecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
  2. 2Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
  3. 3Division for Gynecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Haemek Medical Center, Afula, Israel
  1. Correspondence to Chen Nahshon, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Cente, 7 Michal Street Haifa, Haifa 3436212, Israel; csarshalom{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective To assess the long term outcomes and prognosis of sentinel lymph node sampling compared with full lymph node dissection in endometrial cancer patients.

Methods We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for information on women diagnosed with endometrial cancer from 2010 to 2019. We conducted a comparison including overall survival between patients who had undergone sentinel lymph node sampling only and patients who had undergone formal lymph node dissection. Propensity score matching was performed according to the patient’s age, type of endometrial cancer, grade and stage of disease, and adjuvant therapy. Subgroup analyses were performed according to type and grade of endometrial cancer.

Results 41411 endometrial cancer patients were identified through the database. After matching, 6019 patients each were included in the sentinel lymph node and lymph node dissection groups. Median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up time was 16 (7-31) months in both groups. One year survival rates were longer in the sentinel lymph node group compared with the lymph node dissection group (hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 2.21); p=0.004). Subgroups analysis according to grade of disease showed that 1 year survival rates were longer in the sentinel lymph node group in patients with endometrioid-type grade 1–2 endometrial cancer (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.56); p=0.01), while no difference in survival was found between the sentinel lymph node and lymph node dissection groups in the subgroup of patients with high grade endometrial cancer (HR 1.40 (95%CI 0.94 to 2.24); p=0.17). In patients with low grade endometrial cancer included in the sentinel lymph node group, only 7% had lymph nodes positive for malignancy compared with 17% in the high grade group.

Conclusion Survival rates were not compromised in endometrial cancer patients undergoing sentinel lymph node sampling versus full lymph node dissection for all grades of disease.

  • SLN and Lympadenectomy
  • Uterine Cancer
  • Endometrial Neoplasms

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors CN: data collection, statistical analysis, writing-original draft, methodology, and investigation, guarantor. YK: conceptualization, writing-review and editing, validation, and review. LO: validation and review. OL: writing-review and editing, validation, and review. YS: conceptualization, writing- review and editing, methodology, investigation, supervision and guarantor.

  • 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.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.