Open Access, Peer-reviewed
pISSN 2005-0380   eISSN 2005-0399
    J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jul;32(4):e52. English.
    Published online Mar 20, 2021.
    https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e52
    Copyright © 2021. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology
    Original Article

    Paraaortic sentinel lymph node detection in intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer by transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer (TUMIR)

    Martina Aida Angeles,1,2,* Federico Migliorelli,3,* Sergi Vidal-Sicart,4,5 Adela Saco,5,6,7 Jaume Ordi,6,7,8 Cristina Ros,1,6 Pere Fusté,1,6 Meritxell Munmany,1 Sílvia Escura,1 Núria Carreras,1 Nuria Sánchez-Izquierdo,4 Jaume Pahisa,1,5,6 Aureli Torné,1,5,6 Pilar Paredes,4,5,6 and Marta del Pino1,5,6
      • 1Institute Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Neonatology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain.
      • 2Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
      • 3Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal des Vallées de l'Ariège, St. Jean de Verges, France.
      • 4Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain.
      • 5Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
      • 6Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
      • 7Department of Anatomo-pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain.
      • 8Institut de Salut Global de Barcelona (ISGlobal), Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
    • Correspondence to Pilar Paredes. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Casanova 143, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. Email: pparedes@clinic.cat

      *These authors equally contributed to the work and should be considered as first author.
    Received October 06, 2020; Revised January 21, 2021; Accepted February 20, 2021.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Objective

    We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping with transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer (TUMIR) to detect lymph node (LN) metastases, in patients with intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer (EC), focusing on its performance to detect paraaortic involvement.

    Methods

    Prospective study including women with preoperative intermediate or high-risk EC, according to ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus, who underwent SLN mapping using the TUMIR approach. SLNs were preoperatively localized by planar and single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images, and intraoperatively by gamma-probe. Immediately after SLN excision, all women underwent systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy by laparoscopy.

    Results

    The study included 102 patients. The intraoperative SLN detection rate was 79.4% (81/102). Pelvic and paraaortic drainage was observed in 92.6% (75/81) and 45.7% (37/81) women, respectively, being exclusively paraaortic in 7.4% (6/81). After systematic lymphadenectomy, LN metastases were identified in 19.6% (20/102) patients, with 45.0% (9/20) showing paraaortic involvement, which was exclusive in 15.0% (3/20). The overall sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of SLNs by the TUMIR approach to detect lymphatic involvement were 87.5% and 97.0%, respectively; and 83.3% and 96.9%, for paraaortic metastases. After applying the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm, the sensitivity and NPV were 93.8% and 98.5%, respectively.

    Conclusion

    The TUMIR method provides valuable information of endometrial drainage in patients at higher risk of paraaortic LN involvement. The TUMIR approach showed a detection rate of paraaortic SLNs greater than 45% and a high sensitivity and NPV for paraaortic metastases in women with intermediate and high-risk EC.

    Keywords
    Genital Neoplasms, Female; Endometrial Neoplasms; Sentinel Lymph Node; Lymph Node Excision; Sensitivity and Specificity; Surgery

    INTRODUCTION

    Lymph node (LN) involvement is one of the most important prognostic factors in endometrial cancer (EC) and its evaluation is essential for treatment planning. To assess the risk of LN involvement, patients are stratified based on preoperative criteria as having low, intermediate or high-risk of LN metastases [1]. According to the current European clinical guidelines, systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy should be considered in intermediate-risk patients and is recommended in women with high-risk [1]. The prognosis of women with EC showing paraaortic LN metastases is worse than in patients with only pelvic involvement [2] and extended-field radiotherapy to the aortic area is indicated, in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy [1]. Thus, adequate assessment of paraaortic LN status is crucial in patients at higher risk of LN metastases.

    However, the risk of pelvic LN metastases is about 20% [3, 4, 5, 6], and in the paraaortic area it is of about 15% (4% for isolated paraaortic involvement) in patients with intermediate and high-risk EC [5]. Considering that lymphadenectomy entails a non-negligible morbidity [7], this would imply a high rate of overtreatment even in women at higher risk of LN involvement. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection has emerged as an alternative to systematic lymphadenectomy in these patients [3, 4, 8, 9, 10].

    Cervical tracer injection is the most common technique used for SLN assessment in EC [11]. However, this approach can miss lymphatic endometrial drainage to the paraaortic area, which implies that paraaortic LN metastases may be underdiagnosed. In 2013, we described a safe and feasible method for SLN detection using transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer (TUMIR). This pilot study showed that this approach significantly increased the rate of paraaortic SLN detection and adequately reflected the expected endometrial drainage [12].

    In the present study, we aimed to analyze the performance of SLN mapping using the TUMIR approach in patients with intermediate and high-risk EC and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of this method in the detection of LN metastases, particularly in the paraaortic area.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    1. Patients and study design

    Between March 2006 and March 2017, we prospectively enrolled women with histologically confirmed EC who were candidates for systematic surgical staging because of the presence of intermediate or high-risk of LN involvement, defined by fulfilling at least one of the following inclusion criteria: 1) unfavorable histology (serous, clear cell or International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma); 2) myometrial invasion ≥50% suspected by imaging techniques (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or 3-dimensional [3D]-ultrasound); 3) cervical stroma involvement confirmed by biopsy or suspected by imaging techniques. Patients with any of the following criteria were excluded: 1) contraindication for surgical staging; 2) suspicion of pelvic or paraaortic LN metastases by imaging techniques (computed tomography [CT] or MRI) due to a short-axis diameter larger than 8 mm for pelvic LNs, 10 mm for paraaortic LNs, or due to a round appearance [13]; 3) suspicion of distant metastases at imaging or histologically confirmed; 4) previous surgery or radiotherapy in the pelvic or paraaortic regions.

    All patients were informed and signed a consent form. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (HCB/2006/3112).

    2. Radiotracer injection methodology

    As previously described, [99mTc] Tc-nanocolloid (Nanocoll®; GE Healthcare, Saluggia, Italy) was injected into the myometrium guided by transvaginal ultrasound imaging 18 to 24 hours prior to surgery, with the patient awake after the application of local anesthesia [12]. The volume injected ranged from 4 to 8 mL, and the dose was of 3 to 6 MCi [14]. The Aspen (Siemens-Acuson Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) or Voluson (Voluson v730Expert; General Electric, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) ultrasound imaging devices, equipped with a 4–9 MHz 2D vaginal probe with an attached needle guide, were used for the injection. In an anteverted uterus, a 20-gauge biopsy needle (Gallini Medical Devices, Mantova, Italy) crossed the anterior wall to inject half of the volume in the posterior wall. The remaining volume of radiotracer was injected into the anterior myometrial wall (Fig. 1). Once the radiotracer was administered, the needle was flushed with saline solution. In a retroverted uterus, the injection of radiotracer was first performed into the anterior uterine wall and secondly into the posterior uterine wall [12]. All the procedures were performed by experienced gynecological sonographers together with nuclear medicine physicians. Tolerance to the procedure was assessed using a visual analog scale (range 0–10; no pain to severe pain).

    Fig. 1
    Transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer. In the first step the needle penetrates through the anterior vaginal fornix, crossing the anterior myometrium and the endometrial cavity until reaching the posterior myometrium (A). Half of the volume of radiotracer is injected into the outer two-thirds of the myometrium (C). Then, the needle is partially removed, and the remaining volume of radiotracer is injected into the outer two-thirds of the anterior myometrium (E). (B) Needle crossing the endometrial cavity towards the posterior wall (red arrow). Discontinuous green line delimits the uterus. (D) Tracer accumulation (cyan asterisk) in the posterior wall of the myometrium. Discontinuous green line delimits the uterus. Green double-headed arrow indicates the endometrium. (F) Tracer accumulation (cyan asterisk) in the anterior and posterior walls of the myometrium. Discontinuous green line delimits the uterus. Green double-headed arrow indicates the endometrium.

    3. Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy

    After radiotracer injection, pelvic and abdominal planar images (256×256 matrix, anterior and lateral views of 300 s/frame each) were acquired using single-head (E-Cam; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) or dual-head (Infinia Hawkeye 4; General Electric, Milwaukee, WI, USA) gamma cameras fitted with a low energy-high resolution collimator. The images were obtained 30 minutes and 2–4 hours after tracer injection. Subsequently, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (128×128 matrix, 120 frames, 3º/frame, 20 s/frame) and low-dose CT (512×512 matrix, 140 kV and 2.5 mAs) images were acquired using a hybrid camera (Infinia Hawkeye 4; General Electric) (Supplementary Fig. 1). Since 2012 volume-rendering images were generated using an Osirix Dicom viewer (Pixmeo SARL, Geneva, Switzerland) in a Unix-based operating system (MAC OS X, MacPro; Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA) to obtain a 3D presentation to improve the localization of SLNs.

    SLNs were defined as the first LN observed in sequential images in a specific LN basin, those directly connected with the injection site by a lymphatic channel or if a combination of these criteria was present. LNs appearing later in the same lymphatic basins were considered to be second echelon nodes. If SPECT/CT showed other hot spots in areas without drainage on the planar images or in regions close to the injection site but without visualization in previous planar images, these hot spots were also considered SLNs. Images were examined by 2 nuclear medicine physicians and discussed with the surgeon prior to surgery.

    4. Surgical procedure: Intraoperative SLN detection with gamma probe and paraaortic plus pelvic lymphadenectomy

    Laparoscopic surgery began with an intraperitoneal approach to rule out carcinomatosis. Then, a left retroperitoneal access was created to first localize the paraaortic SLNs with a laparoscopic gamma probe (Navigator; USSC, Norwalk, CT, USA) inserted through a 12 mm-trocar. The SLNs previously visualized in the lymphoscintigraphy or the SPECT/CT were identified and removed. All LNs depicted in the preoperative images and those found during surgery with an activity greater than 10% of the hottest LN were considered SLNs. After selective excision of paraaortic SLNs, a systematic paraaortic LN dissection was carried out. Lymphadenectomy included the removal of the LNs located at the presacral, aortic bifurcation, precaval, preaortic and paraaortic areas, both below and above the inferior mesenteric artery up to the level of the left renal vein as the upper limit of dissection.

    The procedure continued through a transperitoneal approach to perform selective excision of pelvic SLNs. The pelvic regions were carefully scanned with the gamma probe, angled laterally to avoid detection of radioactivity at the injection site. The exact location of each SLN excised in relation to the pelvic vessels, vena cava, or aorta was recorded. Then, bilateral transperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed, including removal of external and internal iliac, obturator fossa, and common iliac LNs. Finally, total vaginal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy assisted by laparoscopy was performed.

    5. Histological SLN ultrastaging and evaluation of the lymphadenectomy specimens

    The SLNs were cut into 2 mm-thick serial sections following their shortest diameter, submitted completely for histology, and routinely embedded in paraffin. The first two 4 µm-thick sections were stained one with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and the second by immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7 (Dako Pathology; Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and examined under a light microscope (conventional evaluation). If these first 2 sections were negative, 6 additional sections were performed at an interval of 400 μm (ultrastaging). Each level included one section stained with H&E and another for cytokeratin 7. Immunohistochemical studies were performed with the automated immunohistochemical system Autostainer Link 48®, using the EnVision system (Dako, Glostrup Municipality, Denmark).

    The lymphadenectomy specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin and macroscopically dissected to isolate all LNs, which were cut into 2 mm-thick sections following their largest diameter and routinely processed. The 4 µm-thick histological sections were obtained with a microtome, which were stained with H&E and examined under a light microscope.

    Metastatic LN involvement was defined as at least one LN (either SLN or one non-SLN) positive for metastases detected either in the evaluation of the H&E and/or the immunohistochemical section (in case of SLN). When present, the size of the metastasis was recorded. Macrometastases were defined as tumor clusters >2 mm, while micrometastases were defined as tumor clusters between 0.2 and 2 mm in size, and isolated tumor cells (ITC) were defined as single tumor cells or small tumor clusters ≤0.2 mm [15].

    6. Statistical analysis

    Data are presented as absolute number and percentage for categorical variables. For continuous variables, data were shown as median and range for the pain scale score and LNs, and as mean±standard deviation for age and body mass index (BMI). Intraoperative SLN detection rate was defined as the number of patients with at least one SLN identified during surgery divided by the number of patients in whom the SLN dissection was attempted during surgery.

    The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) algorithm includes the excision of all mapped SLNs analyzed with ultrastaging, the excision of any suspicious LN during surgery regardless of the mapping and side-specific LN dissection in case of no mapping in the hemi-pelvis [16]. Analysis of accuracy of the TUMIR was performed considering exclusively the women in whom SLN detection was successfully carried out, and it was conducted following the standardization proposal by Cormier et al. [17] by reporting both “overall” and “algorithm” results. Lack of drainage was considered as a failure of the technique and these cases were not considered for the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy.

    The overall sensitivity was estimated as the proportion of patients with positive SLNs among the patients with LN metastases. Overall, the negative predictive value (NPV) was defined as the fraction of patients without LN involvement within the group of patients with negative SLNs. A false negative (FN) result was defined as a patient with negative SLNs who had at least one metastatic non-SLN.

    The sensitivity of the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm was estimated as the proportion of algorithm-positive patients among those with LN involvement. In the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm, the NPV was defined as algorithm-negative patients without LN involvement divided by all algorithm-negative patients. The FN rate of the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm was defined as algorithm-negative patients with LN involvement divided by patients with LN involvement.

    The analysis of paraaortic SLN accuracy with the TUMIR approach was performed considering exclusively the women in whom at least one paraaortic SLN was found. The sensitivity of TUMIR to detect paraaortic involvement was estimated as the proportion of patients with positive paraaortic SLNs among the patients with paraaortic LN metastases. The NPV for paraaortic involvement was defined as the fraction of patients without paraaortic involvement among the group of patients who had negative paraaortic SLNs. A FN result was defined as a patient with negative paraaortic SLNs who had at least one paraaortic metastatic non-SLN. The sensitivity and NPV were calculated for the SLNs evaluated by conventional evaluation (only H&E) and with ultrastaging.

    The Wilson's method was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all the statistical tests, differences were considered significant at the level of 5%, and all reported p-values were 2-sided. The statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 13.1 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

    RESULTS

    1. Patients' characteristics

    The inclusion criteria were fulfilled by 107 patients and TUMIR injection was performed. No major adverse effects were observed during injection and interruption of the procedure did not occur in any of the cases. The median score in the pain scale was 4 (range 0–10).

    Of the 107 women initially enrolled, the procedure was abandoned in 5: due to the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis not identified in preoperative imaging in 3 patients, due to severe intraoperative bleeding in one patient, and due to technical failure of the gamma probe in another patient. Thus, 102 women were finally included in the study.

    The mean age of the 102 women undergoing the SLN procedure was 66.0±9.9 years and the mean BMI was 28.2±5.2 kg/m2. Sixty-four (62.7%) women were preoperatively diagnosed with intermediate-risk EC and 38 (37.3%) had high-risk EC. Preoperative risk, the definitive histological characteristics, and FIGO stage are summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1
    Histological characteristics of the 102 patients included in the study

    2. Surgical SLN detection: successfulness of the TUMIR technique

    Of the 102 patients in whom SLN dissection was attempted, the procedure was successful in 81 women (79.4%: detection rate), whereas in 21 (20.6%) SLN detection failed. In 15 patients there was no drainage of the radiotracer, and in 6 women the radiotracer spilled out through the peritoneal cavity. Fig. 2 shows the flow chart with the women initially recruited (n=107), the women in whom the dissection was attempted (n=102), and the patients in whom the technique was successful and were considered for accuracy analysis (n=81).

    Fig. 2
    Flow chart of the patients included in the study and available for the analyses.
    SLN, sentinel lymph node; TUMIR, transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer.

    3. Anatomical area of SLN drainage and histological evaluation

    A median number of 3 (range 1–8) SLNs were identified per patient in the 81 women in whom at least one SLN was detected. Overall, 244 SLNs were intraoperatively identified among the 81 patients. Pelvic drainage was observed in 75 (92.6%) women and paraaortic drainage in 37 (45.7%) patients. Forty-four (54.3%) patients showed exclusively pelvic drainage, 31 (38.3%) showed both pelvic and paraaortic drainage, and 6 (7.4%) had exclusively paraaortic drainage. Among the 75 patients in whom pelvic drainage was observed, the drainage was bilateral in 24 (32.0%), exclusive to the right pelvis in 23 (30.7%), and exclusive to the left pelvis in 28 (37.3%).

    The topographic distribution of the 244 SLNs retrieved is shown in Fig. 3A. The external iliac was the most common site of SLN drainage. Among the 81 patients with SLN, metastatic involvement of at least one SLN was identified in 14 (17.3%) patients (24/244, 9.8% metastatic SLNs). A single metastatic SLN was identified in 8 patients, and in 6 patients 2 or more SLN with metastasis were detected. The location of the metastatic SLNs is shown in Fig. 3B. Most of the positive SLNs were found in the obturator fossa or around the external iliac vessels. All the paraaortic metastatic SLNs were located in the inframesenteric area.

    Fig. 3
    Topography and lymphatic status of the SLNs identified in the different anatomical areas of lymphatic drainage (n=244) in the 81 patients with at least one SLN. (A) Number and percentage of SLNs retrieved per anatomic area. (B) Number and percentage of involved SLNs per anatomic area.
    SLN, sentinel lymph node.

    SLN metastases were detected in the initial histological evaluation in 8 patients, and in other 6 patients, SLN metastases were detected with ultrastaging (1 patient with macrometastasis, 1 with micrometastasis and 4 cases of ITC).

    4. Histological evaluation of pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy

    After SLN excision, a systematic lymphadenectomy was performed in all 102 patients. A total of 2,489 non-SLNs were retrieved: 1,478 pelvic and 1,011 paraaortic LNs. The median number of LNs per patient was 24 (range 14–51) with 14 (range 8–31) pelvic LNs and 10 (range 5–37) paraaortic LNs. Twenty or more LNs were removed in 70.6% (72/102) of the patients.

    Metastatic involvement of one or more LN (either SLN or non-SLN) was identified in 20/102 (19.6%) women. Exclusive pelvic LN involvement was found in 11/20 (55.0%) cases, while exclusive paraaortic lymphatic involvement was observed in 3/20 (15.0%), and involvement of both areas in 6/20 (30.0%). Thus, 9/20 (45%) patients with LN involvement had paraaortic metastases. Overall, paraaortic metastases were identified in 9/102 (8.8%) patients and exclusive paraaortic involvement in 3/102 (3%).

    Four of the 21 (19.0%) women in whom non-SLN was retrieved (SLN technique failure) had at least one metastatic LN. All 4 women showed macrometastases. Three women had pelvic metastases (2 unilateral, 1 bilateral), and the last patient had exclusive paraaortic involvement.

    5. Analysis of overall and MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm accuracy

    The 81 women in whom the TUMIR procedure was successfully performed and showed at least one SLN were considered in the analysis of accuracy. Sixteen of these 81 (19.7%) women had at least one metastatic LN (either SLN or non-SLN). Among these 16 patients, 14 had a positive SLN, while in 2 patients the SLNs were negative (2/16, overall FN rate of 12.5%). In one of these 2 FN cases, one suspicious macroscopic LN was identified during surgery and, therefore, would have been identified by the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm. The other FN patient had bilateral pelvic drainage and would not have been detected by the algorithm. Thus, the FN rate of the MSKCC algorithm was 1/16, 6.3%. Among the 14 patients with metastatic SLNs, 8 (57.1%) cases showed involvement of SLNs and non-SLNs by H&E, and in 6 (42.9%) cases metastatic involvement was exclusively detected in the SLN by ultrastaging.

    The overall sensitivity and NPV of the SLNs identified by TUMIR to detect LN involvement in the conventional evaluation (H&E alone) were 50.0% (95% CI=28.0–72.0) and 89.0% (95% CI=79.8–94.3), respectively. After adding ultrastaging, the overall sensitivity and NPV increased to 87.5% (95% CI=64.0–96.5) and 97.0% (95% CI=89.8–99.2), respectively. The sensitivity and NPV of the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm to detect LN metastases were 93.8% (95% CI=71.7–98.9) and 98.5% (95% CI=91.9–99.7), respectively.

    6. Analysis of paraaortic SLN accuracy

    The 37 women with at least one paraaortic SLN were considered in the analysis of paraaortic SLN accuracy by the TUMIR approach. Six of these 37 (16.2%) women had at least one metastatic paraaortic LN (either paraaortic SLN or paraaortic non-SLN). Among these, 5 had a positive paraaortic SLN, while in one patient the paraaortic SLN was negative (1/6; 16.7% FN rate for paraaortic LN involvement). This patient had pelvic and paraaortic LN involvement but showed FN pelvic and paraaortic SLNs. Among the 5 women with metastatic paraaortic SLNs, one patient was only detected by ultrastaging and another, with exclusive paraaortic LN involvement, showed exclusive paraaortic SLN drainage.

    The sensitivity and NPV of paraaortic SLN to detect paraaortic lymphatic disease using H&E staining versus the addition of ultrastaging were 66.7% (95% CI=30.0–90.3) vs. 83.3% (95% CI=43.6–97.0) and 93.9% (95% CI=80.4–98.3) vs. 96.9% (95% CI=84.3–99.4), respectively. Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 show the accuracy analyses.

    In 3 out of the 9 patients with paraaortic LN involvement, no paraaortic SLN was identified and, therefore, these patients were not included in the paraaortic SLN accuracy analysis. One of these patients presented exclusive pelvic SLNs and showed isolated paraaortic LN involvement in the lymphadenectomy. In 2 women non-SLN was identified during surgery: one presented pelvic and paraaortic LN involvement in the lymphadenectomy and the other woman presented exclusive paraaortic involvement (Supplementary Fig. 2).

    7. Intraoperative complications

    In one patient severe bleeding occurred after a lumbar vein injury when searching for the SLN in the paraaortic area, requiring conversion to laparotomy. No other intraoperative complication was observed during SLN excision.

    Conversion to laparotomy was required in 2 additional patients. In one case this was due to a ureteral lesion during paraaortic lymphadenectomy, and in the second due to damage of the left renal vein during paraaortic lymphadenectomy.

    DISCUSSION

    The intraoperative SLN detection rate in the present series was almost 80%, being slightly lower than the rate observed in previous studies performed with cervical tracer injection in intermediate or high-risk EC, in which the SLN detection rate ranged from 83% to 100% [3, 4, 6, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Two studies evaluating the SLN procedure with subserosal injection of blue dye in intermediate and/or high-risk EC patients showed detection rates of 73% and 89% [26, 27]. The decreased overall SLN detection in our series could be explained not only by the site of tracer injection but also by the type of tracer, as indocyanine green (ICG) has shown to provide higher SLN detection rates [11]. Table 2 displays the recent studies assessing the SLN procedure in patients with intermediate and/or high-risk EC. Regarding the TUMIR approach, in a previous study, we showed that 25 procedures were needed to achieve the learning curve of this technique. From this point on the detection rate stabilized and only slightly increased with the accumulation of experience [14].

    Table 2
    Studies assessing SLN procedure in patients with intermediate and/or high-risk endometrial cancer from 2015 to date

    Remarkably, paraaortic SLN detection with the TUMIR approach was greater than 45%, being significantly higher than the rate reported in most previous studies using cervical injection, which was of less than 10% [3, 4, 9, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28]. A recent prospective multicenter study—the FIRES trial—described an unusually high detection rate of paraaortic SLNs of 23% with cervical injection using ICG. The high rate of paraaortic SLNs in this study was probably due to secondary drainage from the pelvic LNs as ICG rapidly drains through the lymphatic channels. This is concordant with the extremely low detection of isolated paraaortic SLNs of less than 1% [29], which is inferior to the exclusive paraaortic drainage with the TUMIR approach (7.4%). This low percentage is not surprising, since it has been already pointed out that cervical injection does not adequately represent endometrial drainage, because it misses the lymphatic drainage to the paraaortic area [30]. The uterine corpus has 2 simultaneous lymphatic pathways: the first drainage is through the lymphatic channels together with the uterine vessels to the pelvic LNs -located in the lateral part of the parametrium and/or under the external iliac vein-, and the second drainage goes directly to the paraaortic area through the lymphatic vessels of the gonadal vasculature and the infundibulopelvic ligament [31], explaining the possibility of having SLNs in both areas independently. However, when exclusive paraaortic SLN drainage is obtained, it cannot be determined whether it is due to direct drainage to the paraaortic area or a second echelon after pelvic LNs. Thus, bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy would be required in these cases to avoid undetected pelvic LN metastases. Recently, it has been suggested that paraaortic lymphadenectomy should be considered only in patients in whom paraaortic SLN mapping does not occur [2, 30]. The TUMIR approach would allow avoiding systematic paraaortic LN dissection and its associated morbidity in almost half of patients with SLN mapping. With this high rate of paraaortic SLNs obtained with TUMIR, SPECT/CT plays an important role in identifying a higher number of lymphatic areas and paraaortic SLNs, which enables planning of the surgical approach and guiding the surgical team during intraoperative SLN detection.

    In the present series, the TUMIR approach showed a low bilateral SLN detection rate (32%) compared to the abovementioned studies using the cervical injection approach (58%–95%) [3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Bilateral detection obtained with myometrial injection techniques is usually lower than with cervical injection [11, 26]. Since the uterus is a central organ, bilateral drainage is expected. Therefore, side-specific lymphadenectomy should be performed in case of unilateral SLN detection [32]. Hypothetically, combining the TUMIR method with cervical injection would increase the bilateral pelvic detection rate through the parametrium.

    Other techniques have also been described for SLN detection in EC in an attempt to better reflect endometrial drainage. One of these techniques is intraoperative subserosal-intramyometrial injection. This technique is easy to perform but compared with cervical or other myometrial injection approaches, subserosal injection has shown a lower sensitivity [33] and overall detection rate [26, 27]. Moreover, the detection rate of paraaortic SLNs is about 30%, being significantly lower than the rate reported in the present series [11, 34]. Moreover, subserosal injection needs to be performed during surgery by an open approach [26, 27, 33], which increases surgical morbidity and precludes preoperative surgical planning. Preoperative hysteroscopic injection has also been described as an alternative to increase the detection rate of paraaortic SLNs. The detection rate of this technique ranges from 50% to 95% [11, 35]. A recent study has reported a paraaortic SLN detection rate by hysteroscopic injection with radiotracer or ICG similar to the present series [30]. However, a randomized trial comparing cervical and hysteroscopic injections showed better identification of pelvic SLNs after cervical injection with a non-significant higher detection rate of paraaortic SLNs after hysteroscopic injection [36]. Moreover, this last approach is complex and less reproducible compared with the TUMIR method. Hysteroscopic radiotracer injection is performed without local and/or general anesthesia, which may be uncomfortable for the patient [30]. Although the TUMIR method showed a median moderate score in the pain scale with the application of local anesthesia, it is also performed with the patient awake and this discomfort is not negligible. Dual injection techniques combining cervical injection with transcervical fundal or cornual injections have also been proposed to increase paraaortic SLN detection in EC patients. Dual approaches have shown paraaortic SLN detection rates of 60%–86%, together with a pelvic detection rate of 60%–94% [37, 38]. However, none of these techniques (hysteroscopic, transcervical fundal or cornual injections) have been evaluated and validated exclusively in the subset of patients with intermediate and high-risk EC.

    In keeping with previous reports [3, 4, 8, 18, 21, 23], the rate of LN involvement in the present series was 19.6%. This relatively low percentage of LN involvement highlights that performing systematic pelvic and paraaortic LN dissection, as currently recommended [1], implies overtreatment in up to 80% of these women at higher risk of LN involvement. Moreover, a recent study has suggested that adding lymphadenectomy to SLN mapping has no survival benefit as it does not reduce the risk of relapse [30].

    The overall sensitivity and NPV for the detection of LN metastases in women with intermediate and high-risk EC were 87.5% and 97.0%, respectively. However, after applying the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm, the sensitivity in our series increased to 93.8%. This is in line with most previous studies using cervical or subserosal injection in women with intermediate and/or high-risk EC, which have reported sensitivities ranging from 85% to 100% [3, 4, 6, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. However, other studies have reported lower sensitivities of less than 80% after cervical injection in high-risk women [6, 8, 20, 21]. The NPV of the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm of the present series was 98.5%, which is similar to the values reported in most previous studies [3, 4, 6, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27] (Table 2).

    It has been shown that patients with paraaortic LN metastases have an impaired outcome compared to patients with LN metastases limited to the pelvic area, thereby making assessment of paraaortic LN status essential [2]. The TUMIR approach would allow obtaining reliable information of paraaortic LN status with a high sensitivity and NPV of 83.3% and 96.9%, respectively. Although paraaortic SLNs only identify a few isolated paraaortic metastases, the TUMIR technique provides reliable information of paraaortic status in a significantly higher proportion of patients than cervical injection, which is crucial to assess clinical outcomes and to address the need for the addition of extended-field radiotherapy in cases of paraaortic involvement.

    In line with previous series, in the current report, ultrastaging of the SLN increased the sensitivity of the technique (37.5% to detect overall LN and 16.6% to detect paraaortic LN involvement) [8, 39]. Some studies have reported that patients with low-volume metastases (both micrometastasis and ITC) have a higher risk of recurrence compared with LN negative patients [40]. Thus, ultrastaging should be mandatory in SLNs, as the detection of low-volume metastases might provide important prognostic value.

    The main strengths of the present study are its prospective design and the homogeneous management of the patients included. All the women underwent a complete pelvic and paraaortic LN dissection up to the renal vessels, which was not systematically performed in most of the previous studies evaluating the validity of SLN mapping in high-risk EC [4, 19, 21]. However, the present series also has some limitations. The first is the relatively low number of patients included during the study period. This is due to the strict inclusion criteria that were considered for this series. Another weakness of our study is its unicentric design, which does not allow evaluating the reproducibility of the procedure in other settings. However, the unicentric design ensures homogeneous patient management and processing of the LNs, thereby increasing the internal validity of the study. Moreover, we used a single injection of radiotracer which may produce lower detection rates than combined injection but allows evaluation of the performance of the radiotracer alone.

    In conclusion, the present study shows that the TUMIR approach has an adequate SLN detection rate with a high rate of SLNs in the paraaortic area (45%), providing reliable information of endometrial lymphatic drainage. Moreover, the TUMIR approach shows a high sensitivity and NPV in pelvic and paraaortic areas. Combining the TUMIR approach with cervical injection of tracer would hypothetically allow increasing bilateral pelvic drainage and could be considered in future studies. In addition, the use of ICG alone, combined injection of tracers, or hybrid tracers containing both the radiotracer and ICG should be evaluated in order to increase the overall detection rate. Theoretically, the TUMIR approach by open surgery might provide similar results; however, its performance should be evaluated before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospective multicenter studies including a larger number of women are needed to assess the reproducibility and optimization of this novel approach.

    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

    Supplementary Table 1

    Performance analysis of overall SLNs with H&E alone

    Click here to view.(27K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 2

    Performance analysis of overall SLNs with H&E and ultrastaging

    Click here to view.(30K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 3

    Performance analysis of the MSKCC SLN mapping algorithm with H&E and ultrastaging

    Click here to view.(31K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 4

    Performance analysis of paraaortic SLNs with H&E alone

    Click here to view.(30K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 5

    Performance analysis of paraaortic SLNs with H&E and ultrastaging

    Click here to view.(30K, xls)

    Supplementary Fig. 1

    Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. Early planar image (A) shows bilateral pelvic nodes, while in late planar lymphoscintigraphy (B), paraaortic drainage is also visualized (arrows). Single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images (C) allow better identification and localization of sentinel lymph nodes in the external iliac chains, precaval and supramesenteric areas (C) (white arrows).

    Click here to view.(876K, ppt)

    Supplementary Fig. 2

    Flow chart of patients with LN involvement. Results of SLNs are shown in blue and results related to LN involvement (including data of the SLN and the systematic lymphadenectomy) are shown in red.

    Click here to view.(920K, ppt)

    Notes

    Funding:Martina Aida Angeles acknowledges the grant support from “la Caixa” Foundation, Barcelona (Spain), ID 100010434. The fellowship code is LCF/BQ/EU18/11650038.

    This research was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ICSIII) – Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria and ERDF “One Way to Europe” (PI060331 and PI1800728) and by Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR 2009 SGR 1049 & 2014 SGR 279).

    Conflict of Interest:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

    Author Contributions:

    • Conceptualization: A.M.A., M.F., V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Data curation: A.M.A., M.F., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Formal analysis: A.M.A., M.F., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Investigation: A.M.M., M.F., V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Methodology: A.M.M., M.F., V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Project administration: A.M.A., M.F., V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Resources: V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., P.P.

    • Supervision: V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Validation: M.F., V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    • Visualization: A.M.A., V.S.S., T.A.

    • Writing - original draft: A.M.A., M.F.

    • Writing - review & editing: V.S.S., S.A., O.J., R.C., F.P., M.M., E.S., C.N., S.I.N., P.J., T.A., D.P.M., P.P.

    References

      1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, González-Martín A, Ledermann J, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26:2–30.
      1. Cosgrove CM, Cohn DE, Rhoades J, Felix AS. The prognostic significance of aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: potential implications for selective aortic lymph node assessment. Gynecol Oncol 2019;153:505–510.
      1. Soliman PT, Westin SN, Dioun S, Sun CC, Euscher E, Munsell MF, et al. A prospective validation study of sentinel lymph node mapping for high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:234–239.
      1. Touhami O, Grégoire J, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Plante M. Performance of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147:549–553.
      1. Altay A, Toptas T, Dogan S, Simsek T, Pestereli E. Analysis of metastatic regional lymph node locations and predictors of para-aortic lymph node involvement in endometrial cancer patients at risk for lymphatic dissemination. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:657–664.
      1. Rajanbabu A, Agarwal R. A prospective evaluation of the sentinel node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer and correlation of its performance against endometrial cancer risk subtypes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;224:77–80.
      1. Abu-Rustum NR, Alektiar K, Iasonos A, Lev G, Sonoda Y, Aghajanian C, et al. The incidence of symptomatic lower-extremity lymphedema following treatment of uterine corpus malignancies: a 12-year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:714–718.
      1. Naoura I, Canlorbe G, Bendifallah S, Ballester M, Daraï E. Relevance of sentinel lymph node procedure for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015;136:60–64.
      1. Ye L, Li S, Lu W, He Q, Li Y, Li B, et al. A prospective study of sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: Is it effective in high-risk subtypes? Oncologist 2019;24:e1381–7.
      1. Lecointre L, Lodi M, Faller É, Boisramé T, Agnus V, Baldauf JJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of sentinel lymph node sampling in endometrial cancer at high risk of recurrence: a meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2020;9:3874.
      1. Holloway RW, Abu-Rustum NR, Backes FJ, Boggess JF, Gotlieb WH, Jeffrey Lowery W, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:405–415.
      1. Torné A, Pahisa J, Vidal-Sicart S, Martínez-Roman S, Paredes P, Puerto B, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided myometrial injection of radiotracer (TUMIR): a new method for sentinel lymph node detection in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128:88–94.
      1. Paño B, Sebastià C, Ripoll E, Paredes P, Salvador R, Buñesch L, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in gynecologic malignancies. Radiographics 2015;35:916–945.
      1. Angeles MA, Migliorelli F, León Ramírez LF, Ros C, Perissinotti A, Tapias A, et al. Predictive factors of preoperative sentinel lymph node detection in intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020
        Forthcoming.
      1. Hermanek P, Hutter RV, Sobin LH, Wittekind C. International Union Against Cancer. Classification of isolated tumor cells and micrometastasis. Cancer 1999;86:2668–2673.
      1. Barlin JN, Khoury-Collado F, Kim CH, Leitao MM Jr, Chi DS, Sonoda Y, et al. The importance of applying a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer staging: beyond removal of blue nodes. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:531–535.
      1. Cormier B, Rozenholc AT, Gotlieb W, Plante M, Giede C. Communities of Practice (CoP) Group of Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada (GOC). Sentinel lymph node procedure in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and proposal for standardization of future research. Gynecol Oncol 2015;138:478–485.
      1. Papadia A, Gasparri ML, Radan AP, Stämpfli CA, Rau TT, Mueller MD. Retrospective validation of the laparoscopic ICG SLN mapping in patients with grade 3 endometrial cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2018;144:1385–1393.
      1. Baiocchi G, Mantoan H, Kumagai LY, Gonçalves BT, Badiglian-Filho L, de Oliveira Menezes AN, et al. The impact of sentinel node-mapping in staging high-risk endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:3981–3987.
      1. Tanner EJ, Ojalvo L, Stone RL, Levinson K, Temkin SM, Murdock T, et al. The utility of sentinel lymph node mapping in high-grade endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27:1416–1421.
      1. Ehrisman J, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Lee PS, Di Santo N, Lopez-Acevedo M, et al. Performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2016;17:69–71.
      1. Cusimano MC, Vicus D, Pulman K, Maganti M, Bernardini MQ, Bouchard-Fortier G, et al. Assessment of sentinel lymph node biopsy vs lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-grade endometrial cancer staging. JAMA Surg 2021;156:157–164.
      1. Persson J, Salehi S, Bollino M, Lönnerfors C, Falconer H, Geppert B. Pelvic sentinel lymph node detection in high-risk endometrial cancer (SHREC-trial)-the final step towards a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Eur J Cancer 2019;116:77–85.
      1. Wang T, Hu Y, He Y, Sun P, Guo Z. A retrospective validation study of sentinel lymph node mapping for high-risk endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019;299:1429–1435.
      1. Buda A, Gasparri ML, Puppo A, Mereu L, De Ponti E, Di Martino G, et al. Lymph node evaluation in high-risk early stage endometrial cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis comparing the sentinel lymph node (SLN) algorithm and SLN with selective lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2018;150:261–266.
      1. Farghali MM, Allam IS, Abdelazim IA, El-Kady OS, Rashed AR, Gareer WY, et al. Accuracy of sentinel node in detecting lymph node metastasis in primary endometrial carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015;16:6691–6696.
      1. Valha P, Kucera E, Sak P, Stepanek O, Michal M. Intraoperative subserosal approach to label sentinel nodes in intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2015;36:643–646.
      1. Ballester M, Dubernard G, Lécuru F, Heitz D, Mathevet P, Marret H, et al. Detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel-node biopsy in early stage endometrial cancer: a prospective multicentre study (SENTI-ENDO). Lancet Oncol 2011;12:469–476.
      1. Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, Cantrell L, Schuler K, Hanna RK, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:384–392.
      1. Martinelli F, Ditto A, Bogani G, Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Signorelli M, Chiappa V, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: Performance of hysteroscopic injection of tracers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:332–338.
      1. Lécuru F, Neji K, Robin F, Darles C, de Bièvre P, Taurelle R. Lymphatic drainage of the uterus. Preliminary results of an experimental study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1997;26:418–423.
      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (US). NCCN guidelines version 5. Uterine neoplasms [Internet]. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2019 [cited 2020 Sep 15].
        Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx.
      1. Kang S, Yoo HJ, Hwang JH, Lim MC, Seo SS, Park SY. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: meta-analysis of 26 studies. Gynecol Oncol 2011;123:522–527.
      1. Kataoka F, Susumu N, Yamagami W, Kuwahata M, Takigawa A, Nomura H, et al. The importance of para-aortic lymph nodes in sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer by using hysteroscopic radio-isotope tracer injection combined with subserosal dye injection: prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140:400–404.
      1. Martinelli F, Ditto A, Signorelli M, Bogani G, Chiappa V, Lorusso D, et al. Sentinel node mapping in endometrial cancer following hysteroscopic injection of tracers: a single center evaluation over 200 cases. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:525–530.
      1. Ditto A, Casarin J, Pinelli C, Perrone AM, Scollo P, Martinelli F, et al. Hysteroscopic versus cervical injection for sentinel node detection in endometrial cancer: a multicenter prospective randomised controlled trial from the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer (MITO) study group. Eur J Cancer 2020;140:1–10.
      1. Ruiz R, Gorostidi M, Jaunarena I, Goiri C, Aguerre J, Lekuona A. Sentinel node biopsy in endometrial cancer with dual cervical and fundal indocyanine green injection. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:139–144.
      1. Eoh KJ, Lee YJ, Kim HS, Lee JY, Nam EJ, Kim S, et al. Two-step sentinel lymph node mapping strategy in endometrial cancer staging using fluorescent imaging: a novel sentinel lymph node tracer injection procedure. Surg Oncol 2018;27:514–519.
      1. Kim CH, Soslow RA, Park KJ, Barber EL, Khoury-Collado F, Barlin JN, et al. Pathologic ultrastaging improves micrometastasis detection in sentinel lymph nodes during endometrial cancer staging. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:964–970.
      1. Gómez-Hidalgo NR, Ramirez PT, Ngo B, Pérez-Hoyos S, Coreas N, Sanchez-Iglesias JL, et al. Oncologic impact of micrometastases or isolated tumor cells in sentinel lymph nodes of patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol 2020;22:1272–1279.
    Cited by
    Crossref 1
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed Central 5
    Scopus 7
    Web of Science 6
    MeSH Terms
    Consensus
    Drainage
    Endometrial Neoplasms*
    Female
    Genital Neoplasms, Female
    Humans
    Laparoscopy
    Lymph Node Excision
    Lymph Nodes
    Map
    Neoplasm Metastasis
    Predictive Value of Tests
    Prospective Studies
    Respect
    Sensitivity and Specificity
    Sentinel Lymph Node*
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    ORCID IDs
    Funding Information
    PERMALINK