IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7377-d840026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Different Near-Infrared Technologies to Detect Sentinel Lymph Node in Uterine Cancer: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Restaino

    (Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Udine University Hospital, DAME, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Nicolò Bizzarri

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Vincenzo Tarantino

    (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Silvia Pelligra

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Rossana Moroni

    (Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Direzione Scientifica IRCCS, L.go Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Emilia Palmieri

    (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Giorgia Monterossi

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Barbara Costantini

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Giovanni Scambia

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
    Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Francesco Fanfani

    (UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
    Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Objectives: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is considered a crucial step in endometrial cancer staging. Cervical injection has become the most favored technique and indocyanine green has been demonstrated to be more accurate than other tracers. Different near-infrared camera systems are currently being used to detect indocyanine green in sentinel lymph nodes and have been compared in different patients. The present study aimed to determine the number and site of sentinel lymph nodes detected in the same patients with two different near-infrared technologies. Methods: This is a prospective, single-center, observational, non-sponsored study. Patients with presumed uterine-confined endometrial cancer were prospectively enrolled. After cervical injection, two different near-infrared cameras were used to detect sentinel lymph nodes at the same time: Olympus, Tokyo, Japan—considered the standard (SNIR); and Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA with VISION SENSE ® which is a new laser near-infrared (LNIR) fluorescence laparoscope. The two cameras were alternatively switched on to detect sentinel lymph nodes in the same patients. Results: Seventy-four consecutive patients were included in the study. Most of the patients were diagnosed with endometrioid histology (62, 83.8%), FIGO stage IA (48, 64.9%), grade 2 (43, 58.1%), and underwent surgery with laparoscopic approach (70, 94.0%). The bilateral detection rate was 56/74 (75.7%) with SNIR and 63/74 (85.1%) with LNIR ( p = 0.214). The total number of sentinel lymph nodes identified in the left hemipelvis was 65 and 70 with SNIR and LNIR, respectively; while in the right hemipelvis, there were 74 and 76, respectively. The median number of sentinel lymph nodes identified with SNIR and LNIR was 2 (range, 0–4) and 2 (range, 0–4), respectively ( p = 0.370). No difference in site of sentinel lymph node detection was evident between the two technologies ( p = 0.994). Twelve patients (16.2%) had sentinel lymph node metastasis: in all cases metastatic sentinel lymph nodes were detected both with Olympus and LNIR. Conclusions: No difference in bilateral detection rate and number or site of sentinel lymph node detection was evident comparing two different technologies of near-infrared camera for ICG detection in endometrial cancer patients. No difference in sentinel lymph node metastases identification was detected between the two technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Restaino & Nicolò Bizzarri & Vincenzo Tarantino & Silvia Pelligra & Rossana Moroni & Emilia Palmieri & Giorgia Monterossi & Barbara Costantini & Giovanni Scambia & Francesco Fanfani, 2022. "Comparison of Different Near-Infrared Technologies to Detect Sentinel Lymph Node in Uterine Cancer: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7377-:d:840026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7377/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7377/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7377-:d:840026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.