Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsies in Endometrial Cancer: Practice Patterns among Gynecologic Oncologists in the United States

Study Objective To evaluate practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists with regard to sentinel lymph node injection and biopsy in endometrial cancer. Design An observational study with no control group. Setting and Patients Active members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Interventions After institutional review board approval, we performed an online survey among active members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Members were contacted via e-mail and their answers anonymously captured. Study data were collected using REDCap (REDCap developed by Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN). Measurements and Main Results Three hundred eighteen of 1216 listed members completed the online survey. The majority of respondents (82.7%) perform sentinel lymph node sampling for endometrial cancer staging. Most technical aspects of sentinel lymph node sampling were consistently applied by the vast majority of respondents, including the choice of indocyanine green as a lymphatic tracer (97.3%) and its injection into the cervix (100%). Other technical aspects of sentinel lymph node sampling, such as the depth of injection, varied among respondents. Although 50.9% of the respondents perform an intraoperative assessment of the uterus by frozen section, only 17.9% assess sentinel lymph nodes by frozen section and/or touch prep. Some of the respondents’ approaches are based on limited data, including (1) the use of sentinel lymph node injection and biopsy for high-risk histologies (performed by 69%-75% of the respondents dependent on the histology), (2) omitting side-specific completion lymphadenectomy in the absence of sentinel node mapping (in up to 57.8%), or (3) when lymph node metastases are present (in 39.9%). Conclusion In summary, despite the growing use of sentinel lymph node injection and biopsy in endometrial cancer, practice patterns vary considerably among providers sampled by this survey. Some of the decisions are based on limited evidence and, in some instances, deviate from current published guidelines.