• Health Technol Assess · Dec 2013

    Review

    Sentinel lymph node status in vulval cancer: systematic reviews of test accuracy and decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation.

    • C Meads, A Sutton, S Małysiak, M Kowalska, A Zapalska, E Rogozinska, P Baldwin, A Rosenthal, R Ganesan, E Borowiack, P Barton, T Roberts, S Sundar, and K Khan.
    • Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Brunel University Unit of Health Economics, University of Birmingham Arcana Institute Departments of Gynaecology and Gynaecological Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Trust Department of Gynaecology, Barts Health NHS Trust Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Birmingham Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London Middlesex Birmingham Krakow Cambridge London Birmingham, UK UK UK Poland UK UK UK.
    • Health Technol Assess. 2013 Dec 1; 17 (60): 1-216.

    BackgroundVulval cancer causes 3-5% of all gynaecological malignancies and requires surgical removal and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL). Complications affect > 50% of patients, including groin wound infection, lymphoedema and cellulitis. A sentinel lymph node (SLN) is the first groin node with the highest probability of malignancy. SLN biopsy would be useful if it could accurately identify patients in whom cancer has spread to the groin, without removing all groin nodes. SLNs can be identified by isosulfan blue dye and/or technetium-99 ((99m)Tc) radioactive tracer during lymphoscintigraphy. The blue dye/(99m)Tc procedure only detects SLN, not metastases - this requires histological examination, which can include ultrastaging and staining with conventional haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or immunohistochemistry.ObjectivesTo determine the test accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the SLN biopsy with (99m)Tc and/or blue dye compared with IFL or clinical follow-up for test negatives in vulval cancer, through systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Data SourcesStandard medical databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and The Cochrane Library, medical search gateways, reference lists of review articles and included studies were searched to January 2011.MethodsFor accuracy and effectiveness, standard methods were used and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were to January 2011, with no language restrictions. Meta-analyses were carried out with Meta-Disc version 1.4 (Javier Zamora, Madrid, Spain) for accuracy; none was appropriate for effectiveness. The economic evaluation from a NHS perspective used a decision-tree model in DATA TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2001 (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA). Six options (blue dye with H&E, blue dye with ultrastaging, (99m)Tc with H&E, (99m)Tc with ultrastaging, blue dye/(99m)Tc with H&E, blue dye/(99m)Tc with ultrastaging) were compared with IFL. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor accuracy, of the 26 included studies, most evaluated (99m)Tc/blue dye combined. Four studies had clinical follow-up only for test negatives and five had clinical follow-up for all and IFL for test negatives. Numbers with no SLN found were difficult to distinguish from those with negative SLN biopsies. The largest group of 11 studies using (99m)Tc/blue dye, ultrastaging and immunohistochemistry had a pooled sensitivity of 95.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 91.5% to 98.1%] and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 99.0% to 100%). Mean SLN detection rates were 94.6% for (99m)Tc, 68.7% for blue dye and 97.7% for both. One study measured global health status quality of life (QoL) and found no difference between SLN biopsy and IFL. One patient preference evaluation showed that 66% preferred IFL rather than a 5% false-negative rate from SLN biopsy. For effectiveness, of 14,038 references, one randomised controlled trial, three case-control studies and 13 case series were found. Approximately 50% died from vulval cancer and 50% from other causes during follow-ups. Recurrences were in the ratio of approximately 4 : 2 : 1 vulval, groin and distant, with more recurrences in node-positive patients. No studies reported QoL. For cost per death averted, IFL was less costly and more effective than strategies using SLN biopsy. For morbidity-free survival and long-term morbidity-free survival, (99m)Tc with ultrastaging was most cost-effective. Strategies with blue dye only and H&E only were never cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for (99m)Tc with ultrastaging compared with IFL was £4300 per case of morbidity-free survival and £7100 per long-term morbidity-free survival.LimitationsThe main limitations of this study include the lack of good-quality evidence on accuracy, effectiveness and QoL. A large project such as this takes time to publish, so the most recent studies are not included.ConclusionsA sensitive and specific combined metastatic SLN detection test and information on generic QoL in vulval cancer is urgently required.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.