Table 4

Comparison of SLN assessment with OSNA and ultra-staging (US)

CharacteristicOSNA N,% (range)Ultra-staging N, % (range)P value
Total no of patients1813
Age, median (range), years40.5 (31–57)40 (27–63)0.60
BMI (median, range), kg/m2 23.5 (19–33)23.9 (19.5–33)0.54
Surgical approach, n (%)0.52
 Laparotomy3 (16.7)3 (23.1)
 Laparoscopy12 (66.6)7 (53.8)
 Robotic3 (16.7)3 (23.1)
Histology, n (%)0.72
 Squamous cell carcinoma10 (55.5)6 (46.2)
 Adenocarcinoma8 (44.5)7 (53.8)
Grade, n (%)0.89
 12 (11.1)3 (23.1)
 210 (55.5)6 (46.2)
 34 (22.2)3 (23.1)
 Unknown2 (11.1)1 (7.7)
Lymph vascular space invasion, n (%)0.97
 No9 (50.0)8 (61.5)
 Yes8 (44.5)5 (38.5)
 Not reported1 (5.5)0
Tumor size, median (range), mm16.5 (1–34)20.5 (5–34)0.62
Tumor ≥20 mm, n (%) 0.01
 Yes7 (38.9)8 (61.5)
 No11 (61.1)2 (15.4)
 Not reported03 (23.1)
FIGO (2009) stage, n (%)0.15
 IA11 (5.5)3 (23.1)
 IA201 (7.7)
 IB117 (94.5)9 (69.2)
Prior cervical conization, n (%)0.73
 Yes8 (44.5)5 (38.5)
 No10 (55.5)8 (61.5)
SLN metastasis 0.02
 No12 (66.7)11 (84.6)
 Isolated tumor cells00
 Micro-metastasis6 (33.3)0
 Macro-metastasis02 (15.4)
Performance
 Sensitivity85.7100.0
 Negative predictive value96.1100.0
  • BMI, body mass index; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; OSNA, one-step nucleic acid amplification; SLN, sentinel lymph node.