A GCIG international survey: clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer
Purpose To evaluate the practice patterns among centers and physicians worldwide regarding sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. Method A validated 35-item questionnaire regarding SLNB in CC supported by the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and sponsored by the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic–Oncology (NOGGO) was sent to all major gynecological cancer societies across the globe for further distribution from October 2015 and continued for a period of 7 months. Results One hundred and sixty-one institutions from around the world participated. One hundred and six (66%) of the participants were from university centers and 111 (69%) were gynecologic oncologists. One hundred and fifty-two (97%) performed lymphadenectomy (LNE) and 147 (94%) did so systematically; 97 (60%) used SLNB, due to lower morbidity (73%), reliability (55%) and time-saving (27%). In cases of positive SLNB (pN+), 39% of respondents stopped the operation and sent the patient for chemoradiation (CRT), 45% completed pelvic and paraaortic LNE, whereas 26% went on to perform a radical hysterectomy (RH) and systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. In case of negative SLNB (pN0), 39% of institutions still performed a systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. Conclusion In this survey worldwide, SLNB adoption is an encouraging 60%, yet ample differences exist regarding strategy, and to a lower extent the techniques used. Lack of experience is the most common reason SLNB is not performed. Efforts to increase surgical education on SLNB technique and multicenter prospective trials providing evidence-based guidelines are warranted..
Medienart: |
Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2019 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:300 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics - 300(2019), 1 vom: 21. Apr., Seite 191-199 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Vercellino, G. F. [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
Volltext [lizenzpflichtig] |
---|
Themen: |
Cervical cancer |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 |
---|
doi: |
10.1007/s00404-019-05164-2 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
OLC2105265774 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | OLC2105265774 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230402210047.0 | ||
007 | tu | ||
008 | 230402s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00404-019-05164-2 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2105265774 | ||
035 | |a (DE-He213)s00404-019-05164-2-p | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
100 | 1 | |a Vercellino, G. F. |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-2228-5495 |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a A GCIG international survey: clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer |
264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 | ||
520 | |a Purpose To evaluate the practice patterns among centers and physicians worldwide regarding sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. Method A validated 35-item questionnaire regarding SLNB in CC supported by the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and sponsored by the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic–Oncology (NOGGO) was sent to all major gynecological cancer societies across the globe for further distribution from October 2015 and continued for a period of 7 months. Results One hundred and sixty-one institutions from around the world participated. One hundred and six (66%) of the participants were from university centers and 111 (69%) were gynecologic oncologists. One hundred and fifty-two (97%) performed lymphadenectomy (LNE) and 147 (94%) did so systematically; 97 (60%) used SLNB, due to lower morbidity (73%), reliability (55%) and time-saving (27%). In cases of positive SLNB (pN+), 39% of respondents stopped the operation and sent the patient for chemoradiation (CRT), 45% completed pelvic and paraaortic LNE, whereas 26% went on to perform a radical hysterectomy (RH) and systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. In case of negative SLNB (pN0), 39% of institutions still performed a systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. Conclusion In this survey worldwide, SLNB adoption is an encouraging 60%, yet ample differences exist regarding strategy, and to a lower extent the techniques used. Lack of experience is the most common reason SLNB is not performed. Efforts to increase surgical education on SLNB technique and multicenter prospective trials providing evidence-based guidelines are warranted. | ||
650 | 4 | |a International survey | |
650 | 4 | |a Sentinel lymph node biopsy | |
650 | 4 | |a Cervical cancer | |
700 | 1 | |a Erdemoglu, E. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Lichtenberg, P. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Muallem, M. Z. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Richter, R. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Abu-Rustum, N. R. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Plante, M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Lécuru, F. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Greggi, S. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Monk, B. J. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sagae, S. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Denkert, C. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Keller, M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Alhakeem, M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Hellriegel, M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Dückelmann, A. M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Chiantera, V. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sehouli, Jalid |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Archives of gynecology and obstetrics |d Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1987 |g 300(2019), 1 vom: 21. Apr., Seite 191-199 |w (DE-627)130684236 |w (DE-600)896455-5 |w (DE-576)016233751 |x 0932-0067 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:300 |g year:2019 |g number:1 |g day:21 |g month:04 |g pages:191-199 |
856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05164-2 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 300 |j 2019 |e 1 |b 21 |c 04 |h 191-199 |