Diagnostics (Oct 2023)

Feasibility of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Georgia Zachou,
  • Gabriella Yongue,
  • Dhivya Chandrasekaran

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13203209
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 20
p. 3209

Abstract

Read online

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been widely adopted in the management of early-stage gynaecological cancers such as endometrial, vulvar and cervical cancer. Comprehensive surgical staging is crucial for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer and currently, that includes bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymph node assessment. SLNB allows the identification, excision and pathological assessment of the first draining lymph nodes, thus negating the need for a full lymphadenectomy. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases (from inception to 3 November 2022) in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Our search identified 153 articles from which 11 were eligible for inclusion. Patients with clinical stage I–II ovarian cancer undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy were included. Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio using the meta package, where meta-analysis was performed for the detection. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies C (QUADAS-C) tool. Overall, 11 observational studies met the predetermined criteria and these included 194 women. The meta-analysis showed that the detection rate of sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage ovarian cancer was 94% (95% CI of 86% to 1.00%). Significant heterogeneity was noted among the studies with Q = 47.6, p 2 = 79% and τ2 = 0.02. Sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage ovarian cancer have a high detection rate and can potentially have applicability in clinical practice. However, considering the small number of participants in the studies, the heterogeneity among them and the low quality of evidence, the results should be interpreted with caution. Larger trials are needed before a change in clinical practice is recommended.

Keywords