Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 May;30(3):e35. English. Original Article.
Chambers LM , Vargas R , Michener CM .
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.


To determine patterns among gynecologic oncologists in sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) for endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC).


A online survey assessing the practice of SLNM, including incidence, patterns of usage, and reasons for non-use was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology candidate and full members in August 2017. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis was performed.


The 1,117 members were surveyed and 198 responses (17.7%) were received. Of the 70% (n=139) performing SLNM, the majority reported use for both CC and EC (64.0%) or EC alone (33.1%). In those using SLNM in EC, the majority (86.6%) performed SLNM in >50% of cases for all patients (56.3%), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (43.0%) and 2 (42.2%). Reported benefits of SLNM in EC were reduced surgical morbidity (89.6%), lymphedema (85.2%), and operative time (63.7%). Among those using SLNM for CC, the majority (73.1%) did so in >50% of cases. In EC, 77.2% and 21.3% reported that micro-metastatic disease (0.2–2.0 cm) and isolated tumor cells (ITCs) should be treated as node positive, respectively. In those not using SLNM for EC (n=64) and CC (n=105), concerns were regarding efficacy of SLNM and lack of training. When queried regarding training, 73.7% felt that SLNM would impact skill in full lymphadenectomy (LND).


The SLNM is utilized frequently among gynecologic oncologists for EC and CC staging. Common reasons for non-uptake include uncertainty of current data, lack of training and technology. Concerns exist regarding impact of SLNM in fellowship training of LND.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.