Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40200256›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2025

Comparison of tracer application methods for sentinel lymph node detection in open surgery patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Borek Sehnal, Petr Waldauf, Radoslav Matej, Martin Hruda, Helena Robova, Jana Drozenova, Tomas Pichlik, Jan Zapletal, Lukas Rob, Michael J Halaska

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07040657 (Comparison of Two-Point and Four-Point Cervical Injection Techniques Using Methylene Blue for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07040657 narecruitingnot on this map

Comparison of Two-Point and Four-Point Cervical Injection Techniques Using Methylene Blue for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorDokuz Eylul UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsEndometrial Neoplasms, Endometrial Cancer Stage I, Sentinel Lymph Node, MetastasisArmsSentinel Lymph Node Detection/Cervical Methylene Blue Injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Borek SehnalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic. boreksehnal@seznam.cz.
Petr WaldaufDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Radoslav MatejDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Martin HrudaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Helena RobovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Jana DrozenovaDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Tomas PichlikDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Jan ZapletalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Lukas RobDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.
Michael J HalaskaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 1150/50, Prague 10, 100 34, Czech Republic.

Funding

Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky FTN 00064190Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky Nr. NW24-09-00505Univerzita Karlova v Praze No. 207035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

resultsGroup I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.

conclusionsThe study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.

trial registrationInstitution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. REGISTRATION NUMBER: EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsSentinel Lymph NodeSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDetection failureDetection successEndometrial cancerLaparotomyRisk factorsSentinel lymph nodeTracer application

Identifiers

PMID40200256
PMCPMC11980138

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.