Occhiali, Tommaso

Purpose of review Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and sentinel lymphnode biopsy is accepted as a valid alternative to lymphadenectomy for staging purposes. Recently, sentinel node biopsy has been also extended to high-risk disease where risk of nodal involvement is higher. Recent findings Our review focuses on the definition of high-risk disease and how there are different concepts of high-risk in the scientific community. While the sensitivity of sentinel node biopsy has been established and accepted in lower risk endometrial cancers, only in recent years retrospective and prospective evidence has been published. Ultrastaging allows to identify more nodal disease that would normally be overlooked by traditional staging, allowing proper adjuvant therapy to be administered. The longstanding question of whether lymphadenectomy in high-risk settings is a therapeutic or a staging procedure remains open. Retrospective data, however, show that oncologic outcomes are not compromised by sentinel node biopsy. Summary Sentinel node biopsy is a valid alternative to traditional, more extensive nodal staging: with the addition of ultrastaging, it has more sensitivity than lymphadenectomy with less surgical morbidity. Ongoing trials will definitively establish if oncological outcomes are affected by sentinel node biopsy, but retrospective data are encouraging.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most diagnosed gynecologic malignancy, and its incidence and mortality are increasing. The prognosis is highly dependent on the disease spread. Surgical staging includes retroperitoneal evaluation to detect potential lymph node metastases. In recent years, systematic lymphadenectomy has been replaced by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and ultrastaging, allowing for the detection of macrometastases, micrometastases, and isolated tumor cells (ITCs). Micrometastases and ITCs have been grouped as low-volume metastases (LVM). The reported prevalence of LVM in studies enrolling more than one thousand patients with apparent early-stage EC ranges from 1.9% to 10.2%. Different rates of LVM are observed when patients are stratified according to disease characteristics and their risk of recurrence. Patients with EC at low risk for recurrence have low rates of LVM, while intermediate- and high-risk patients have a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with nodal metastases, including LVM. Macro- and micrometastases increase the risk of recurrence and cause upstaging, while the clinical significance of ITCs is still uncertain. A recent meta-analysis found that patients with LVM have a higher relative risk of recurrence [1.34 (95% CI: 1.07–1.67)], regardless of adjuvant treatment. In a retrospective study on patients with low-risk EC and no adjuvant treatment, those with ITCs had worse recurrence-free survival compared to node-negative patients (85.1%; CI 95% 73.8–98.2 versus 90.2%; CI 95% 84.9–95.8). However, a difference was no longer observed after the exclusion of cases with lymphovascular space invasion. There is no consensus on adjuvant treatment in ITC patients at otherwise low risk, and their recurrence rate is low. Multi-institutional, prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical significance of ITCs in low-risk patients. Further stratification of patients, considering histopathological and molecular features of the disease, may clarify the role of LVM and especially ITCs in specific contexts.