Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer
Introduction The requirement for nodal analysis currently confounds the oncological propriety of focused purely endoscopic resection for early-stage colon cancer and complicates the evolution of innovative alternatives such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and its hybrids....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of surgical oncology 2009-08, Vol.16 (8), p.2170-2180 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2180 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 2170 |
container_title | Annals of surgical oncology |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Cahill, Ronan A. Bembenek, Andreas Sirop, Saad Waterhouse, Deirdre F. Schneider, Wolfgang Leroy, Joel Wiese, David Beutler, Thomas Bilchik, Anton Saha, Sukamal Schlag, Peter M. |
description | Introduction
The requirement for nodal analysis currently confounds the oncological propriety of focused purely endoscopic resection for early-stage colon cancer and complicates the evolution of innovative alternatives such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and its hybrids. Adjunctive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) deserves consideration as a means of addressing this shortfall.
Methods
Data from two prospectively maintained databases established for multicentric studies of SNB in colon cancer that employed similar methodologies were pooled to establish technique potency selectively in T1/T2 disease (both overall and under optimized conditions) and to project potential clinical impact.
Results
Of 891 patients with T1–4, M0 intraperitoneal colon cancer, 225 had T1/T2 disease. Sentinel nodes were either not found or were falsely negative in 18 patients with T1/T2 cancers (8%) as compared with 17% (112/646) in those with T3/T4 disease (
P
= 0.001). Negative predictive value (NPV) in the former exceeded 95%, while sensitivity [including immunohistochemistry (IHC)] was 81%. In the 193 patients with T1/T2 disease recruited from those centers contributing >22 patients, sensitivity was 89% and NPV 97%. Thus, in this cohort, SNB could have correctly prompted localized resection (obviating en bloc mesenteric dissection) in 75% (144) of patients, including 59 with T1 lesions potentially amenable to intraluminal resection alone as their definitive treatment. Forty-four patients (23.4%) would still have conventional resection, leaving three patients (1.6% overall) understaged (11% false-negative rate).
Conclusion
These findings support the further investigation of SNB as oncological augment for localized resective techniques. Specific prospective study should pursue this goal. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67491459</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1791696291</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-bcef69f013abc2f5fb3c8680ff76c8ad4467376acd92543f9867ef67514148863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtrGzEUhUVpaNK0P6CbIrrIbhq9H8t2cJpAaBZO1kLWSLbCeORKMwHn10dmDIZCVhI63zn3ogPAN4x-YsL4dcGIUdYgpBvEMWr0B3CBeX1hQuGP9Y6EajQR_Bx8LuUZISwp4p_AOdZMEoTJBdgs_TDGwffwb-o8_B3TruxhSBmOGw_vhi6-xG6yfXy1Y0wDTAEup7yOzvZwOWY7-vWMt1P2B3Vhc79vlqNde9imvlpaOzifv4CzYPvivx7PS_B0s3hsb5v7hz937a_7xlGhx2blfBA6IEztypHAw4o6JRQKQQqnbMeYkFQK6zpNOKNBKyGrQ3LMMFNK0EtwNefucvo3-TKabSzO970dfJqKEZJpzLiu4I__wOc05aHuZgiRlHMsVIXwDLmcSsk-mF2OW5v3BiNz6MDMHZjagTl0YA7B34_B02rru5Pj-OkVIDNQqjSsfT5Nfj_1DdgzkQM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>227355168</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Cahill, Ronan A. ; Bembenek, Andreas ; Sirop, Saad ; Waterhouse, Deirdre F. ; Schneider, Wolfgang ; Leroy, Joel ; Wiese, David ; Beutler, Thomas ; Bilchik, Anton ; Saha, Sukamal ; Schlag, Peter M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cahill, Ronan A. ; Bembenek, Andreas ; Sirop, Saad ; Waterhouse, Deirdre F. ; Schneider, Wolfgang ; Leroy, Joel ; Wiese, David ; Beutler, Thomas ; Bilchik, Anton ; Saha, Sukamal ; Schlag, Peter M.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
The requirement for nodal analysis currently confounds the oncological propriety of focused purely endoscopic resection for early-stage colon cancer and complicates the evolution of innovative alternatives such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and its hybrids. Adjunctive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) deserves consideration as a means of addressing this shortfall.
Methods
Data from two prospectively maintained databases established for multicentric studies of SNB in colon cancer that employed similar methodologies were pooled to establish technique potency selectively in T1/T2 disease (both overall and under optimized conditions) and to project potential clinical impact.
Results
Of 891 patients with T1–4, M0 intraperitoneal colon cancer, 225 had T1/T2 disease. Sentinel nodes were either not found or were falsely negative in 18 patients with T1/T2 cancers (8%) as compared with 17% (112/646) in those with T3/T4 disease (
P
= 0.001). Negative predictive value (NPV) in the former exceeded 95%, while sensitivity [including immunohistochemistry (IHC)] was 81%. In the 193 patients with T1/T2 disease recruited from those centers contributing >22 patients, sensitivity was 89% and NPV 97%. Thus, in this cohort, SNB could have correctly prompted localized resection (obviating en bloc mesenteric dissection) in 75% (144) of patients, including 59 with T1 lesions potentially amenable to intraluminal resection alone as their definitive treatment. Forty-four patients (23.4%) would still have conventional resection, leaving three patients (1.6% overall) understaged (11% false-negative rate).
Conclusion
These findings support the further investigation of SNB as oncological augment for localized resective techniques. Specific prospective study should pursue this goal.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-9265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19472012</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aged ; Colonic Neoplasms - pathology ; Colonic Neoplasms - surgery ; Female ; Gastrointestinal Oncology ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Oncology ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgical oncology, 2009-08, Vol.16 (8), p.2170-2180</ispartof><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-bcef69f013abc2f5fb3c8680ff76c8ad4467376acd92543f9867ef67514148863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-bcef69f013abc2f5fb3c8680ff76c8ad4467376acd92543f9867ef67514148863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472012$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cahill, Ronan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bembenek, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirop, Saad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waterhouse, Deirdre F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiese, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beutler, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilchik, Anton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saha, Sukamal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlag, Peter M.</creatorcontrib><title>Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer</title><title>Annals of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Introduction
The requirement for nodal analysis currently confounds the oncological propriety of focused purely endoscopic resection for early-stage colon cancer and complicates the evolution of innovative alternatives such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and its hybrids. Adjunctive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) deserves consideration as a means of addressing this shortfall.
Methods
Data from two prospectively maintained databases established for multicentric studies of SNB in colon cancer that employed similar methodologies were pooled to establish technique potency selectively in T1/T2 disease (both overall and under optimized conditions) and to project potential clinical impact.
Results
Of 891 patients with T1–4, M0 intraperitoneal colon cancer, 225 had T1/T2 disease. Sentinel nodes were either not found or were falsely negative in 18 patients with T1/T2 cancers (8%) as compared with 17% (112/646) in those with T3/T4 disease (
P
= 0.001). Negative predictive value (NPV) in the former exceeded 95%, while sensitivity [including immunohistochemistry (IHC)] was 81%. In the 193 patients with T1/T2 disease recruited from those centers contributing >22 patients, sensitivity was 89% and NPV 97%. Thus, in this cohort, SNB could have correctly prompted localized resection (obviating en bloc mesenteric dissection) in 75% (144) of patients, including 59 with T1 lesions potentially amenable to intraluminal resection alone as their definitive treatment. Forty-four patients (23.4%) would still have conventional resection, leaving three patients (1.6% overall) understaged (11% false-negative rate).
Conclusion
These findings support the further investigation of SNB as oncological augment for localized resective techniques. Specific prospective study should pursue this goal.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Colonic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Colonic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Oncology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><issn>1068-9265</issn><issn>1534-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtrGzEUhUVpaNK0P6CbIrrIbhq9H8t2cJpAaBZO1kLWSLbCeORKMwHn10dmDIZCVhI63zn3ogPAN4x-YsL4dcGIUdYgpBvEMWr0B3CBeX1hQuGP9Y6EajQR_Bx8LuUZISwp4p_AOdZMEoTJBdgs_TDGwffwb-o8_B3TruxhSBmOGw_vhi6-xG6yfXy1Y0wDTAEup7yOzvZwOWY7-vWMt1P2B3Vhc79vlqNde9imvlpaOzifv4CzYPvivx7PS_B0s3hsb5v7hz937a_7xlGhx2blfBA6IEztypHAw4o6JRQKQQqnbMeYkFQK6zpNOKNBKyGrQ3LMMFNK0EtwNefucvo3-TKabSzO970dfJqKEZJpzLiu4I__wOc05aHuZgiRlHMsVIXwDLmcSsk-mF2OW5v3BiNz6MDMHZjagTl0YA7B34_B02rru5Pj-OkVIDNQqjSsfT5Nfj_1DdgzkQM</recordid><startdate>20090801</startdate><enddate>20090801</enddate><creator>Cahill, Ronan A.</creator><creator>Bembenek, Andreas</creator><creator>Sirop, Saad</creator><creator>Waterhouse, Deirdre F.</creator><creator>Schneider, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Leroy, Joel</creator><creator>Wiese, David</creator><creator>Beutler, Thomas</creator><creator>Bilchik, Anton</creator><creator>Saha, Sukamal</creator><creator>Schlag, Peter M.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090801</creationdate><title>Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer</title><author>Cahill, Ronan A. ; Bembenek, Andreas ; Sirop, Saad ; Waterhouse, Deirdre F. ; Schneider, Wolfgang ; Leroy, Joel ; Wiese, David ; Beutler, Thomas ; Bilchik, Anton ; Saha, Sukamal ; Schlag, Peter M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-bcef69f013abc2f5fb3c8680ff76c8ad4467376acd92543f9867ef67514148863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Colonic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Colonic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Oncology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cahill, Ronan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bembenek, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirop, Saad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waterhouse, Deirdre F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiese, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beutler, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilchik, Anton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saha, Sukamal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlag, Peter M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cahill, Ronan A.</au><au>Bembenek, Andreas</au><au>Sirop, Saad</au><au>Waterhouse, Deirdre F.</au><au>Schneider, Wolfgang</au><au>Leroy, Joel</au><au>Wiese, David</au><au>Beutler, Thomas</au><au>Bilchik, Anton</au><au>Saha, Sukamal</au><au>Schlag, Peter M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Ann Surg Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2009-08-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2170</spage><epage>2180</epage><pages>2170-2180</pages><issn>1068-9265</issn><eissn>1534-4681</eissn><abstract>Introduction
The requirement for nodal analysis currently confounds the oncological propriety of focused purely endoscopic resection for early-stage colon cancer and complicates the evolution of innovative alternatives such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and its hybrids. Adjunctive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) deserves consideration as a means of addressing this shortfall.
Methods
Data from two prospectively maintained databases established for multicentric studies of SNB in colon cancer that employed similar methodologies were pooled to establish technique potency selectively in T1/T2 disease (both overall and under optimized conditions) and to project potential clinical impact.
Results
Of 891 patients with T1–4, M0 intraperitoneal colon cancer, 225 had T1/T2 disease. Sentinel nodes were either not found or were falsely negative in 18 patients with T1/T2 cancers (8%) as compared with 17% (112/646) in those with T3/T4 disease (
P
= 0.001). Negative predictive value (NPV) in the former exceeded 95%, while sensitivity [including immunohistochemistry (IHC)] was 81%. In the 193 patients with T1/T2 disease recruited from those centers contributing >22 patients, sensitivity was 89% and NPV 97%. Thus, in this cohort, SNB could have correctly prompted localized resection (obviating en bloc mesenteric dissection) in 75% (144) of patients, including 59 with T1 lesions potentially amenable to intraluminal resection alone as their definitive treatment. Forty-four patients (23.4%) would still have conventional resection, leaving three patients (1.6% overall) understaged (11% false-negative rate).
Conclusion
These findings support the further investigation of SNB as oncological augment for localized resective techniques. Specific prospective study should pursue this goal.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19472012</pmid><doi>10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1068-9265 |
ispartof | Annals of surgical oncology, 2009-08, Vol.16 (8), p.2170-2180 |
issn | 1068-9265 1534-4681 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67491459 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Aged Colonic Neoplasms - pathology Colonic Neoplasms - surgery Female Gastrointestinal Oncology Humans Lymph Nodes - pathology Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasm Staging Oncology Prognosis Prospective Studies Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Surgery Surgical Oncology |
title | Sentinel Node Biopsy for the Individualization of Surgical Strategy for Cure of Early-Stage Colon Cancer |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T21%3A41%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sentinel%20Node%20Biopsy%20for%20the%20Individualization%20of%20Surgical%20Strategy%20for%20Cure%20of%20Early-Stage%20Colon%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Cahill,%20Ronan%20A.&rft.date=2009-08-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2170&rft.epage=2180&rft.pages=2170-2180&rft.issn=1068-9265&rft.eissn=1534-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1245/s10434-009-0510-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1791696291%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=227355168&rft_id=info:pmid/19472012&rfr_iscdi=true |