Abstract:Introduction: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and in two thirds of patients it is apparently uterine confined at presentation. Lymph nodal status represents one of the main prognostic factors. Nodal evaluation with sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has gained more ground in clinical practice after the publication of different studies demonstrating the feasibility and accuracy of this technique. However, at the moment there are no RCTs available evaluating the long-term oncologic safety of SLN technique compared to LND. This review aims at summarizing the available evidence on oncologic outcomes between SLN mapping alone and LND. Differences in operative complications and long-term complications were also analyzed. Evidence acquisition: The literature search was conducted in the PubMed database and it focused on comparative studies published from inception to September 2020 analyzing differences in oncological outcomes or complications between nodal evaluation with SLN technique alone and nodal evaluation with lymphadenectomy. Comparative studies with more than 10 cases, published in English, were included. Evidence synthesis: A total of 5 retrospective comparative studies have been identified reporting data on oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent SLN mapping alone vs. LND. Non significative difference has been reported in terms of overall survival and recurrence free survival between the two groups. Six studies evaluated differences in terms of complications between the two techniques. A total of 2302 patients were identified. Postoperative complications were detected in 9.6% and 7.7% of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy and SLN mapping respectively and no significant difference was noted (P=0.3). Looking at major postoperative complications the rate in the LND group was significantly higher than in the SLN group (3.6% vs. 1.5%, P=0.02). Two of these six studies reported data on lymphatic long-term complications. The prevalence of lymphedema ranged from 0% to 1.3% in the SLN group and from 10% to 18% in the LND group. The absolute difference reported (13.35%) was similar to the one found in literature. Conclusions: SLN mapping in apparently uterine confined disease has been demonstrated to be a feasible and accurate technique for nodal evaluation and high-quality evidence support this. Moreover, SLN mapping resulted to be associated with less major postoperative and long-term complications when compared to LDN. Conversely, high-quality evidence is not available on long-term oncologic safety of this technique compared to the standard LND. Randomized trials are requested to provide reliable data on this aspect.

Correspondence on 'Long-term survival outcomes in high-risk endometrial cancer patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus lymphadenectomy' by Capozzi et al

Long-term survival outcomes in high-risk endometrial cancer patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus lymphadenectomy

Sentinel node mapping in high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer: Analysis of 5-year oncologic outcomes

Sentinel lymph node for endometrial cancer treatment: review of the literature

Impact of sentinel lymph node mapping on survival in patients with high‐risk endometrial cancer in the early stage: A matched cohort study

Survival after sentinel node biopsy alone in early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review

EP183/#1565 Meta-analysis of the Application Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Early Stage High-Risk Endometrial Cancer

Sentinel node mapping, sentinel node mapping plus back-up lymphadenectomy, and lymphadenectomy in Early-sTage cERvical caNcer scheduled for fertilItY-sparing approach: The ETERNITY project

Overall survival after surgical staging by lymph node dissection versus sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: a national cancer database study

Oncologic Outcome of Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer

The impact of sentinel lymph node sampling versus traditional lymphadenectomy on the survival of patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer

Long term complications following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer, incidence and potential risk factors: a single institution experience

Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with one to two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE multicentre randomized clinical trial and reopening of enrolment

The Risk of Recurrence in Endometrial Cancer Patients with Low-Volume Metastasis in the Sentinel Lymph Nodes: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study

Axillary Dissection vs. no Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer Patients With Positive Sentinel Lymph Node: A Single Institution Experience

Does sentinel node mapping impact morbidity and quality of life in endometrial cancer?

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: When, how and in which patients

Survival associated with the use of sentinel lymph node in addition to lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer treated with surgery alone: A sub-analysis of the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative study

Long-term outcomes of sentinel lymph node navigation surgery for early-stage cervical cancer

Role of sentinel lymph node in endometrial cancer: rationale and surgical aspects, a review of the literature

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer: a New Standard of Care?