Next Article in Journal
Effect of Localized Vibration Massage on Popliteal Blood Flow
Next Article in Special Issue
Trends in Net Survival from Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Italy (1990–2015)
Previous Article in Journal
Cure of Alzheimer’s Dementia Requires Addressing All of the Affected Brain Cell Types
Previous Article in Special Issue
Maximal Effort Cytoreduction in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Perioperative Complications and Survival Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/jcm12052048
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Current Approaches to the Management of Sentinel Node Procedures in Early Vulvar Cancer in Germany: A Web-Based Nationwide Analysis of Practices

by
Roxana Schwab
1,*,†,
Kathrin Stewen
1,†,
Theresa-Louise Bührer
1,
Mona W. Schmidt
1,
Josche van der Ven
1,
Katharina Anic
1,
Valerie C. Linz
1,
Bashar Haj Hamoud
2,
Walburgis Brenner
1,
Katharina Peters
1,
Anne-Sophie Heimes
1,
Katrin Almstedt
1,
Slavomir Krajnak
1,
Wolfgang Weikel
1,
Marco J. Battista
1,
Christian Dannecker
3 and
Annette Hasenburg
1
1
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany
2
Department for Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Hospital, 66421 Homburg, Germany
3
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(5), 2048; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12052048
Submission received: 11 January 2023 / Revised: 20 February 2023 / Accepted: 2 March 2023 / Published: 4 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Outcome and Management of Gynecological Malignancies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Lymph node involvement is the most important prognostic factor for recurrence and survival in vulvar cancer. Sentinel node (SN) procedure can be offered in well-selected patients with early vulvar cancer. This study aimed to assess current management practices with respect to the sentinel node procedure in women with early vulvar cancer in Germany. Methods: A Web-based survey was conducted. Questionnaires were e-mailed to 612 gynecology departments. Data were summarized as frequencies and analyzed using the chi-square test. Results: A total of 222 hospitals (36.27%) responded to the invitation to participate. Among the responders, 9.5% did not offer the SN procedure. However, 79.5% evaluated SNs by ultrastaging. In vulvar cancer of the midline with unilateral localized positive SN, 49.1% and 48.6% of respondents, respectively, would perform ipsilateral or bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection. Repeat SN procedure was performed by 16.2% of respondents. For isolated tumor cells (ITCs) or micrometastases, 28.1% and 60.5% of respondents, respectively, would perform inguinal lymph node dissection, whereas 19.3% and 23.8%, respectively, would opt for radiation without further surgical intervention. Notably, 50.9% of respondents would not initiate any further therapy and 15.1% would opt for expectant management. Conclusions: The majority of German hospitals implement the SN procedure. However, only 79.5% of respondents performed ultrastaging and only 28.1% were aware that ITC may affect survival in vulvar cancer. There is a need to ensure that the management of vulvar cancer follows the latest recommendations and clinical evidence. Deviations from state-of-the-art management should only be after a detailed discussion with the concerned patient.

1. Introduction

Vulvar cancer is a rare cancer affecting elderly patients, with a reported worldwide incidence of 4.6 per 100,000 women per year. In Germany, 3301 new cases were reported in 2017 [1]. The incidence has been rising over the last few decades, with a 20% increase observed between 1973 and 2000 [2]. It is also occurring at younger ages; the mean age at diagnosis has decreased from 69 years to 55 years between 1979 and 1993 [3].
Vulvar cancer spreads primarily via the lymphatics. Lymph node involvement is the most important predictor of recurrence and survival and therefore a key factor to be considered when selecting the treatment approach [4,5,6]. Assessment of the lymphatic drainage is an integral part of surgical procedures for vulvar cancers of stage IB and above. However, only 25–35% of patients with early-stage disease are diagnosed with lymph node metastases [4,5,7,8,9,10], meaning that up to 75% of patients unnecessarily undergo inguinal lymph node dissection (IL) and suffer adverse outcomes, such as lymphocele and chronic lymphedema of the lower limb [10,11,12,13,14].
The sentinel node (SN) procedure can be offered as a treatment procedure in defined clinical settings and well-selected patients, such as clinically node-negative disease and in stage T1B tumors with size < 4 cm [10,15,16,17,18,19]. A survey performed in 2016 in Germany revealed that 73% of the hospitals offered the SN procedure [20]. SN dissection aims to identify the single node most likely to harbor subclinical disease and, thus, achieve oncological accuracy and safety while also minimizing short-term and long-term morbidity.
Van der Zee reported a false-negative rate of 2.3% for SN biopsy and a 3-year disease-specific survival rate of 97% following negative SN biopsy in patients with unifocal vulvar disease [8]. The largest prospective clinical trial to date—which included 452 women undergoing SN procedure and, subsequently, additional lymphadenectomy—showed that the SN procedure had a sensitivity of 91.7% per patient and false-negative predictive value of 2% in patients with tumors smaller than 4 cm [10].
However, in some circumstances, the accuracy of SN biopsy remains controversial [17]. Previous surgery of the vulva or the inguinal region may negatively impact the accuracy of SN biopsy. In patients with carcinoma involving the midline and unilaterally positive SN, as well as in patients with ITCs or micrometastases, the value of the SN procedure is not well studied and current data are inconclusive [18,21].
Moreover, national and international guidelines may slightly differ in the recommendation for managing the SN procedure in early cancer of the vulva (Table 1).
The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to current findings for the management of early vulvar cancer in Germany, especially with regard to the SN biopsy procedure, and to examine the clinical management adopted in specific situations. The ultimate goal is to improve and standardize the management of vulvar cancer in the country.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Development and Web Administration of the Questionnaire

A Web-based questionnaire was developed to assess the approach adopted for the management of lymph node involvement in vulvar cancer in German hospitals on the basis of the current literature (Supplementary Material). The questionnaire was validated by the experts of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) for vulvar cancer, representing the German experts in the respective medical field. In this study, we report the results related to the use of SN mapping and the current diagnostic and surgical approaches adopted for the management of early vulvar cancer.
A direct link to the Web-based questionnaire was sent to all German hospitals having a gynecology department. The Web site included information regarding the aim of the study. If there was no response to the first e-mail invitation to participate in the survey, three follow-up e-mails were sent. The survey link was active from 14 February to 12 March 2021. The questionnaire took about 15 min to complete and was to be answered only once. All questionnaires were included in the final analysis, even if not all questions had been answered; therefore, the total number of respondents varied for each question, and the reported percentages are the proportion of respondents to each question.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data were summarized as means (± standard deviation) or absolute frequencies and proportions (%) as appropriate. The chi-square test was used to assess the significance of differences between proportions. Bivariate logistic regression analyses with the independent variables “being a certified gyneco-oncological center”, working in a “department ≥ 10 patients with primary cancer of the vulva per year”, and “surgical experience ≥ 10 years” were applied to determine the odds for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical significance was at p < 0.05. The McNemar test was used to determine significant differences in dichotomous dependent variables between two related groups.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample

Invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 612 hospitals. The questionnaire was accessed (“clicks”) by 222 hospitals/gynecologists; of these, 215 hospitals/gynecologists either fully or partially filled in the questionnaire. The demographic characteristics of the study group are displayed in Table 2.
While 90.5% of respondents considered the SN procedure as an option in patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (Table 2), 9.5% did not offer the SN procedure to patients. About 50.2% of hospitals reported to treat < 10 patients with primary cancer of the vulva per year, and 78.3% of them were non-certified gyneco-oncological centers (χ2 = 36.640; p < 0.001). The hospitals that reported to treat ≥ 10 patients with recurrent cancer of the vulva per year were 84% certified gyneco-oncological centers (χ2 = 20.337; p < 0.001), and all had a gynecological oncologist (p < 0.001).
The most frequent reasons for not offering the SN procedure were the following (multiple answers possible): a small number of vulvar cancer patients seen per year (47.4%); the belief that, from the oncological perspective, IL is at least as safe as the SN procedure (47.1%); lack of experience with the SN procedure in patients with vulvar cancer (42.1%); concerns regarding oncological safety (29.4%); and no equipment for 99mTc detection (26.3%). Notably, 31% of respondents had no administrative or medical reasons for not performing the SN procedure in vulvar cancer patients.
Demographic characteristics in the perspective of adherence to current national and international guidelines are displayed in Table 3. The odds to perform the SN procedure were significantly higher in certified oncological centers than in non-certified hospitals (OR 16.743; 95% CI 2.197–127.603; p = 0.007) or in hospitals treating 10 or more patients with primary cancer of the vulva per year (Table 3).

3.2. Reported Benefits and Limitations/Contraindications of the SN Procedure

Of the 215 respondents, 89.2% answered the questions related to benefits and/or contraindications of the SN procedure (multiple answers possible). The majority (97%) recognized that quality of life was less affected by SN procedure than by IL. The other recognized benefits were the feasibility of excision of the lymph node with the highest probability of recurrence (54% of respondents), relatively little morbidity (14.6%), and the possibility of individualized therapy (3%), such as wishes of the patients or consideration of preexisting comorbidities. Meanwhile, 1% of respondents could not point out any benefits of the SN procedure in patients with vulvar cancer. There were no significant differences with regard to benefit acknowledgements between certified and non-certified oncological centers.
The most frequently declared contraindication to the SN procedure in vulvar cancer (multiple answers possible) was tumor diameter > 4 cm (63.6%), followed by previous radiotherapy of the groin (56.6%), and multifocality (47%); meanwhile, 13.1% of respondents were not aware of any contraindications (Figure 1). The odds of not being aware of any contraindication regarding the SN procedure in vulvar cancer were significantly lower in certified oncological centers (OR 0.210; 95% CI 0.070–0.635; p = 0.006) or in centers treating ≥ 10 patients with primary cancer of the vulva per year (OR 0.392; 95% CI 0.162–0.950; p = 0.038) (Table 3), while acknowledging the tumor diameter of > 4 cm as a contraindication of the above-mentioned procedure was significantly higher in certified centers than in non-certified hospitals (OR 2.761; 95% CI 1.510–5.048; p = 0.001) (Table 3). The odds of recognizing previous surgery of the vulva or of the groins as contraindications were significantly increased in those with surgical experience of ≥ 10 years (Table 3).

3.3. Management of the Standard SN Procedure

The most frequently used tracer (multiple answers possible) for the SN procedure was technetium-99 m (99mTc; 94.4% of respondents), followed by Patent Blue (30.5%), indocyanine green (ICG; 23.7%), methylene blue (8.5%), and Sentimag® (3.40%). The combination of 99mTc and one of the other tracers was used by 50.3% of respondents; the most frequently selected combination was 99mTc and Patent Blue (27.93%). The staining with ICG was significantly mere often performed in certified hospitals than in non-certified centers (OR 2.148; 95% CI 1.058–4.364; p = 0.034) (Table 3), while no differences were observed with respect to the other tracer.
According to 68.8% of respondents, intraoperative frozen section was used for the examination of the SN. With respect to the histopathological processing of the SN, 31.3% of respondents stated that the SN was processed by hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. When HE staining showed no cells suspicious for malignancy, 79.5% of respondents stated that they would perform ultrastaging, and 11.9% were not performing this method, while the rest was not aware of the method used by the respective pathologist. The ultrastaging procedure was performed significantly more often in certified oncological centers than in non-certified hospitals (OR 2.450; 95% CI 1.150–5.224; p = 0.020), as well as hospitals treating ≥ 10 patients with primary cancer of the vulva per year (OR 2.686; 95% CI 1.268–5.687; p = 0.010) (Table 3).

3.4. Management of the SN Procedure in Specific Situations

When a metastatic lymph node was suspected prior to the SN procedure, 54.8% of respondents would perform preoperative biopsy of the suspicious node, but 37.9% would opt for upfront IL and 0.6% for upfront radiation therapy; meanwhile, 6.80% would continue with the scheduled SN procedure.
After detecting a localized positive SN in patients with vulvar cancer of the midline, 48.6% of respondents would perform bilateral IL, 49.1% would prefer a systematic dissection of the ipsilateral lymph nodes, and 2.3% would not perform any further surgical procedures. Regarding the management after previous vulvar surgery (second tumor of the vulva), 82.7% of respondents stated that they would perform the SN procedure. Notably, only 16.2% of respondents would offer a repeat SN procedure.
If ITCs were detected, 50.9% of respondents would not initiate any further procedures, as they assumed that ITCs in the groin lymph nodes of patients with vulvar cancer had no prognostic relevance. However, 28.1% would opt for ipsilateral IL and 19.3% would advise ipsilateral radiation without further surgical intervention (Figure 2). In patients with micrometastases, 15.1% of participants would not initiate any further procedure, 60.50% would perform ipsilateral IL, and 23.8% would offer ipsilateral radiation without further surgical intervention (Figure 2).
Regarding management after previous excision of the vulva, 82.7% of respondents would offer the SN procedure, while 17.3% of respondents would not.
With respect to a repeat SN procedure (SN procedure after a previous SN procedure), 16.2% of respondents would offer this procedure in vulvar cancer patients, while 83.8% would not. The reasons offered for avoiding a repeat SN procedure in vulvar cancer included insufficient evidence regarding the long-term outcome and oncological safety (82.5%), the belief that it was still an experimental procedure (56.1%), and the presence of atypical lymphatic drainage after a previous SN procedure (46.6%). Only 26 respondents answered the question on intraoperative experience with a repeat SN procedure; while 61.5% stated that the surgical procedure was more complex, 42.3% stated that the number of retrieved LN was lower than in a standard first SN procedure.

3.5. Imaging Procedures in a Standard SN Procedure and in Specific Situations

Practices related to imaging prior to the SN procedure were also assessed. For a standard SN procedure, 87% of respondents would perform ultrasound of the groins; the other favored modalities were lymphoscintigraphy (48%), computed tomography (CT; 43.5%), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 29.4%), single-photon emission computed tomography (2.3%) scan, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan (1.1%). Meanwhile, 1.7% would not perform any imaging procedure prior to a standard SN procedure. Lymphoscintigraphy before a SN procedure was significantly more often performed in certified than in non-certified hospitals (OR 1.823; 95% CI 1.007–3.330; p = 0.048), while MRI was significantly rarely performed in certified centers (OR 0.291; 95% CI 0.143–0.589; p = 0.001).
The use of imaging was largely the same for repeat SN procedures and for SN procedures after excision of the vulva. However, lymphoscintigraphy was significantly less often performed prior to the SN procedure after excision of the vulva (p = 0.001).

4. Discussion

In 2008, the first report of the GROningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V-I) study showed that the SN procedure was non-inferior to IL with respect to oncological safety in patients with vulvar cancer, but clearly superior with respect to long-term morbidity [8]. Since then, the proportion of patients receiving the SN procedure in Germany has steadily increased from 11.4% during 1998–2008 to 39.1% during 2009–2013 [22] and to 73% in 2016 [20]. The present survey showed that, in 2021, more than 90% of German hospitals treating patients with vulvar cancer applied the SN procedure when indicated. Half of the respondents in our survey were treating < 10 patients with vulvar cancer per year, and significantly more of these hospitals were non-certified gyneco-oncological centers. Moreover, approximately 15% of respondents stated that they do not provide treatment by a gynecological oncologist in the respective institution. A previous study has shown that the false-negative rate of the SN procedure can be as high as 27% in the hands of surgeons unfamiliar with the procedure [23]. In our survey, working in a low-volume center and unfamiliarity with the procedure were the reasons offered by almost half of those who stated that they would not offer the SN procedure to patients with vulvar cancer. In contrast, working in a certified oncological center significantly increased the odds of offering the SN procedure in women with early vulvar cancer. Because the SN procedure is technically challenging, several experts recommend that the procedure be performed only in high-volume oncological centers with a minimum of 5–10 SN procedures per surgeon per year. As vulvar cancer has a low incidence, centralization of treatment should be considered [8,24,25].
Ultrastaging is an enhanced pathological analysis in which serial node sections are stained by immunohistochemical procedures to detect ITCs or micrometastases [26,27]. Ultrastaging can increase the sensitivity and specificity of the SN procedure by detecting more true-positive nodes and reducing false-negative results [8,10,27,28,29]. Only 79.5% of respondents in our survey were aware that ultrastaging was performed in patients with vulvar cancer when HE staining of the SN shows no signs of malignancy; this could be due to ignorance regarding the importance of conducting the costly and time-consuming ultrastaging or due to poor communication between German gynecologists and pathologists. Ultrastaging is crucial in patients with vulvar cancer, as up to 41.7% of cases of ITCs or micrometastases are detected only by this procedure [8,10,28,30]. Routine pathological examination detects positive nodes in only 59% of cases [30]. The GROINSS-V-I study indicated that strict adherence to the SN protocol and awareness of contraindications could prevent false-negative results [8]. According to national and international guidelines, the two most important contraindications are tumor size > 4 cm and tumor multifocality [16,17,18,19]. In our survey, only 63.6% and 47% of respondents, respectively, recognized tumor size > 4 cm and multifocality as contraindications. Levenback et al. found that the false-negative rate of the SN procedure was 2% in women with tumors < 4 cm in size but 7.4% in women with tumors 4–6 cm in size, suggesting the possibility of fatal undertreatment of the groins in those with large tumors [10]. In the GROINSS-V-I study, 252 (62.5%) women had tumors of the midline but showed no impairment in long-term outcome; however, two women with multifocal disease developed tumor recurrence within a short period of time [8]. Subsequent analyses revealed that, in multifocal disease, peritumoral injection of tracer may not fully reveal the extent of the tumors; thus, these patients should be treated with upfront IL [8].
Several types of tracers (99mTc, blue dye, and Patent Blue) can help visualize the SN. National and international guidelines mandate the use of a radioactive tracer, as metastases are unlikely to be missed with this technique [15,18]. Our survey showed that most German institutions follow these guidelines (94.4% of respondents affirmed the use of 99mTc colloid). In a previous study, the use of blue dye identified only 82.5% of positive nodes [26]. Other studies have shown that only 56% of radioactive isotope–traced nodes are stained by blue dye [9,31]. Oonk et al. found that the SN procedure performed using the combination of a radioactive tracer and another tracer had a negative predictive value of nearly 100% [9,24]. In our survey, only half of the respondents confirmed the use of the double-tracer method; nevertheless, neither the national nor the international guidelines recommended the use of the double-tracer method as mandatory [15,16,17,18,19]. In recent years, new tracing methods have been introduced. Although only 6.8% of German hospitals used ICG in 2016 [20], 23.7% of our respondents reported having experience with ICG tracing. According to some authors, ICG tracing of groin lymph nodes in patients with vulvar cancer provides a sensitivity of nearly 100% and a false-negative rate of 0% [32,33]; thus, it may be an excellent option for centers with experience with this technique. Nevertheless, there are no reports regarding long-term outcomes after ICG, so the performance should be restricted to experienced teams.
For the treatment of recurrent disease, IL is recommended if it has not already been performed [15]. Data on the accuracy and safety of a repeat SN procedure in vulvar cancer are scarce, and, consequently, only 16.2% of respondents in our survey said that they would offer the SN procedure to their patients. In a retrospective study of five oncological centers in the Netherlands, van Doorn et al. showed that a repeat SN procedure is feasible, though more challenging than a primary SN node biopsy [34]. In their study, no groin recurrence occurred during the follow-up period of 27 months [34]. A repeat SN procedure might be an option in older patients or patients who wish to minimize short-term and long-term morbidity. However, as a matter of course, thorough counseling regarding the risks and benefits of therapy should precede every deviation from state-of-the-art treatment.
In our survey, only 48.6% of respondents said that they would perform bilateral IL in patients with vulvar cancer of the midline and unilateral positive SN. According to current evidence, bilateral IL should be performed in patients with unilateral positive SN. In a recent study on women presenting with midline lesions, an SN positivity rate of 22.2% on the contralateral side was described (median depth of invasion is 8.5 mm in those with contralateral metastases), indicating that understaging of the groins might be fatal [35]. Deeper invasion is associated with an increased risk of metastatic disease and so, for women who are concerned about possible long-term effects of bilateral IL, depth of invasion should be taken into account during counseling [19,35].
A proportion of 82.7% of respondents would offer the SN procedure to women with previous excision of the vulva; however, 20.7% of respondents listed previous excision of the vulva as a relative contraindication for the SN procedure. Crosbie et al. hypothesized that vulvar resection would result in damage to lymphatics and altered lymph flow and could thus affect the accuracy of the SN procedure [36]. In their study, significantly fewer SNs were detected in the 15 patients with previous excision of the vulva than in those without surgery of the vulva (n = 17). However, the recurrence rate was not significantly different between the two groups after a follow-up of 62 months [36]. In recent studies, the SN detection rate in operated patients with scar injection (87.5–100%) and the disease-free survival rates were similar to those in patients without previous vulvar tumor excision [10,37,38].
In contrast to breast cancer patients, in whom the presence of small metastases (<2 mm) in the SN do not impact survival (presumably due to the specific biology of breast cancer or the frequently applied additional adjuvant treatment), patients with vulvar cancer appear to have poorer oncological outcomes if no further interventions are undertaken. In a previous study, non-SN metastases were detected in 4.2% of patients with ITCs in the SN and in 10.5% of patients with micrometastases [30]. The possibility of non-SN metastases increased with the diameter of the SN metastasis, but the authors did not determine a cutoff size that could accurately predict the absence of non-SN metastases [30]. The 5-year survival was 97% in patients with ITCs and 88% in patients with metastases ≤ 2 mm [30]. The authors of the GROINSS-V-I study concluded that the presence of SN metastasis, irrespective of size, was an indication for further groin treatment, with surgery being the first choice for ensuring locoregional control [30]. It is therefore alarming that 50.90% and 15.1% of respondents in our survey would not initiate any further treatment after the detection of ITCs or micrometastases, respectively. Our data suggest that, currently, not all German patients with vulvar cancer will benefit from state-of-the-art treatment and might therefore lose years of potential life. Nevertheless, in our survey, for patients with ITCs or with micrometastases, 19.30% and 23.80% of respondents, respectively, said that they would advise ipsilateral radiation without further surgical intervention. This is reassuring, because 2-year follow-up data from the GROINSS-V-II study suggest that radiotherapy of the groins with 50 Gy was safe in patients with ITCs or micrometastases, as the isolated groin recurrence rate was 1.6% [39,40].
Accurate preoperative staging is crucial for deciding the extent of groin surgery and for selecting patients suitable for the SN procedure, thus avoiding unnecessary groin dissection and related morbidity and also increasing oncological safety in women eligible for the SN procedure. In this survey, 3.2% of respondents stated that they do not perform any imaging procedure prior to surgery of the groins, thus not following national or international standards of treatment. Imaging procedures are particularly important when planning surgical management in patients with vulvar cancer, as clinical assessment of inguinal nodes is often inaccurate—with a false-negative rate of 16–24% and a false-positive rate of 24–41% [41,42].
Up to 88% of respondents in our survey would perform preoperative ultrasound of the groins in patients with vulvar cancer and 54.8% would additionally assess suspicious lymph nodes by cytological or histological methods to determine the optimal surgical procedure. The combination of preoperative ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology has a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 100% [43].
Lymphoscintigraphy is a non-invasive, well-established method for evaluating the anatomical pattern of lymphatic distribution [44], especially in specific situations [45], such as a previous SN procedure. In our survey, 58.1% of respondents used this imaging procedure, especially those working in certified cancer centers.
Other imaging procedures are less sensitive in this population. However, in our survey, 48.8% and 33.30% of respondents, respectively, stated that they usually performed CT or MRI scan prior to surgery for vulvar cancer, while preoperative CT did not modify the initial treatment strategy in a previous study [46]. PET scan also appears to have a relatively low value for predicting lymph node metastasis in women with vulvar cancer [47]. MRI has no value for preoperative assessment of lymph node involvement in vulvar cancer, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of only 52%, 85%, 46%, and 87%, respectively [48].

Limitations

An obvious limitation of our study is the design; this was an online survey using an invitation e-mail. With multiple reminders sent to non-respondents, we achieved a final response rate of 36.23%, which is comparable to the response rates achieved in previous e-mail-based studies [49,50]. In surveys, there is a potential risk for bias if non-respondents differ significantly from respondents with respect to demographic and practice variables [51]. However, non-response bias may be of less concern in surveys conducted among physicians, as they constitute a relatively homogeneous population with regard to knowledge, training, and attitudes [52]. Previous studies have shown that higher response rates are not associated with lower response bias [51].

5. Conclusions

There is high diversity in the management of vulvar cancer in Germany despite the availability of specific guidelines that are updated regularly. Although vulvar cancer is a rare disease, treatment in Germany is not centralized. We showed that centralization by treating women with vulvar cancer in certified gyneco-oncological centers led to increased compliance regarding following the current guidelines. It is crucial to ensure adherence to the latest evidence and current guidelines regarding upfront treatment for patients with vulvar cancer. In order to improve the care for patients with malignant diseases, it is necessary to implement regular internal and external monitoring of treatment procedures, continuing education, as well as centralization. The effect of such interventions should be checked by subsequent surveys.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12052048/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S., C.D., and A.H.; formal analysis, R.S., K.S., T.-L.B., and V.C.L.; investigation, R.S., M.W.S., J.v.d.V. and W.W.; methodology, R.S., K.S. and T.-L.B.; project administration, R S..; software, K.S.; supervision, R.S. and A.H.; validation, R.S.; visualization, R.S., K.S., T.-L.B., M.W.S., J.v.d.V., K.A. (Katharina Anic), V.C.L., B.H.H., W.B., K.P., A.-S.H., K.A. (Katrin Almstedt), S.K. and M.J.B.; writing—original draft, R.S. and K.S.; writing—review and editing, K.S., T.-L.B., M.W.S., J.v.d.V., K.A. (Katharina Anic), V.C.L., B.H H., W.B., K.P., A.-S.H., K.A. (Katrin Almstedt), S.K., W.W., M.J.B., C.D. and A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data were included in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants of the study and all the members of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) for vulvar cancer for validating the questionnaire. This study is a part of the doctoral thesis of Theresa-Louise Bührer.

Conflicts of Interest

R.S.: Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, AstraZeneca, and Streamedup!GmbH; S.K. received speaker honoraria from Roche Pharma AG; research funding from Novartis and travel reimbursement from PharmaMar; A.-S.H. received honoraria from Pfizer Pharma Med Update GmbH; M.J.B.: Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro Bio GmbH, Pharma Mar AG, Astra Zeneca Germany, and Clovis Oncology; C.D.: Speaker honoraria: MSD, GSK, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, Clovis Oncology, and Roche Pharma AG; A.H.: Honoraria: Astra Zeneca, Celgen, MedConcept GmbH, Med update GmbH, Medicultus, Pfizer, Promedicis GmbH, Softconsult, Roche Pharma AG, Streamedup!GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, and LEO Pharma; Ad Board: PharmaMar, Promedicis GmbH, Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, AstraZeneca, LEO Pharma, and MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH.

References

  1. Robert Koch Institut, Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten. Available online: https://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Krebsarten/Vulvakrebs/vulvakrebs.html (accessed on 7 September 2021).
  2. Judson, P.L.; Habermann, E.B.; Baxter Nancy, N.; Durham, S.; Virnig, B.A. Trends in the Incidenc of Invasive and In Situ Vulvar Carcinoma. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 107, 1018–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Messing, M.J.; Gallup, D.G. Carcinoma of the vulva in young women. Obstet. Gynecol. 1995, 86, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Burger, M.; Hollema, H.; Emanuels, A.; Krans, M.; Pras, E.; Bouma, J. The importance of the groin node status for the survival of T1 and T2 vulvar carcinoma patinets. Gynecol. Oncol. 1995, 57, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Hullu, J.A.; Hollema, H.; Lolkema, S.; Boezen, M.; Boonstra, H.; Burger, M.P.M.; Aalders, J.G.; Mourits, M.J.E.; van der Zee, A.G.J. Vulvar carcinoma: The price of less radical surgery. Cancer 2002, 95, 2331–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lin, J.; DuBeshter, B.; Angel, C.; Dvoretsky, P.M. Morbidity and Recurrence with Modifications of Radical Vulvectomy and Groin Dissection. Gynecol. Oncol. 1992, 47, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hacker, N.; Leuchter, R.; Berek, J.; Castaldo, T.W.; Lagasse, L.D. Radical vulvectomy and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy through separate groin incisions. Obstet. Gynecol. 1981, 58, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van der Zee, A.G.J.; Oonk, M.H.; De Hullu, J.A.; Ansink, A.C.; Vergote, I.; Verheijen, R.H.; Maggioni, A.; Gaarenstroom, K.N.; Baldwin, P.J.; Van Dorst, E.B.; et al. Sentinel node dissection is safe in the treatment of early-stage vulvar cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 884–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Hullu, J.A.; Hollema, H.; Piers, D.A.; Verheijen, R.H.M.; Van Diest, P.J.; Mourits, M.J.E.; Aalders, J.G.; van der Zee, A.G. Sentinel Lymph Node Procedure Is Highly Accurate in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Vulva. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000, 18, 2811–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Levenback, C.F.; Ali, S.; Coleman, R.L.; Gold, M.A.; Fowler, J.M.; Judson, P.L.; Bell, M.C.; De Geest, K.; Spirtos, N.M.; Potkul, R.K.; et al. Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Women With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Vulva: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 3786–3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hayes, S.C.; Janda, M.; Ward, L.C.; Reul-Hirche, H.; Steele, M.L.; Carter, J.; Quinn, M.; Cornish, B.; Obermair, A. Lymphedema following gynecological cancer: Results from a prospective, longitudinal cohort study on prevalence, incidence and risk factors. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 146, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kim, S.I.; Lim, M.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y.; Park, K.; Joo, J.; Seo, S.S.; Kang, S.; Chung, S.H.; Park, S.Y. Impact of lower limb lymphedema on quality of life in gynecologic cancer survivors after pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015, 192, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gaarenstroom, K.N.; Kenter, G.G.; Trimbos, J.B.; Agous, I.; Amant, F.; Peters, A.A.W.; Vergote, I. Postoperative complications after vulvectomy and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy using separate groin incisions. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2003, 13, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rouzier, R.; Haddad, B.; Dubernard, G.; Dubois, P.; Paniel, B.-J. Inguinofemoral Dissection for Carcinoma of the Vulva: Effect of Modifications of Extent and Technique on Morbidity and Survival. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2003, 196, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Oonk, M.H.M.; Planchamp, F.; Baldwin, P.; Bidzinski, M.; Brännström, M.; Landoni, F.; Mahner, S.; Mahantshetty, U.; Mirza, M.; Petersen, C.; et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Vulvar Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2017, 27, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology. Vulvar Cancer Guidelines. Esgo. 2017, pp. 1–75. Available online: https://guidelines.esgo.org/media/2016/08/ESGO-Vulvar-cancer-Complete-report-fxd2.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  17. Koh, W.; Greer, B.E.; Abu-Rustum, N.R.; Campos, S.M.; Cho, K.R.; Chon, H.S.; Chu, C.; Cohn, D.; Crispens, M.A.; Dizon, D.S.; et al. Vulvar Cancer, Version 1.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. JNCCN J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2017, 15, 92–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. AWMF-Leitlinienprogramm: Diagnostik und Therapie des Vulvakarzinoms und seiner Vorstufen. 2015. Available online: https://www.ago-online.de/fileadmin/ago-online/015059lS2kVulvakarzinomundVorstufenDiagnostikTherapie2016031.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  19. Schnürch, H.G.; Ackermann, S.; Alt, C.D.; Barinoff, J.; Böing, C.; Dannecker, C.; Gieseking, F.; Günthert, A.; Hantschmann, P.; Horn, L.C.; et al. Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors. Guideline of the DGGG and DKG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/059, November 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016, 76, 1035–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Klapdor, R.; Hertel, H.; Soergel, P.; Jentschke, M.; Hillemanns, P. Application of sentinel lymph node dissection in gynecological cancers: Results of a survey among German hospitals. Arch. Gynecol. Obs. 2016, 295, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Moncayo, V.; Alazraki, A.; Alazraki, N.; Aarsvold, J.N. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Procedures. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2017, 47, 595–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rottmann, M.; Beck, T.; Burges, A.; Dannecker, C.; Kiechle, M.; Mayr, D.; Schlesinger-Raab, A.; Schubert-Fritschle, G.; Engel, J. Trends in surgery and outcomes of squamous cell vulvar cancer patients over a 16-year period (1998–2013): A population-based analysis. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 142, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Radziszewski, J.; Kowalewska, M.; Jedrzejczak, T.; Kozlowicz-Gudzinska, I.; Nasierowska-Guttmejer, A.; Bidzinski, M.; Siedlecki, J.A. The accuracy of the sentinel lymph node concept in early stage squamous cell vulvar carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2010, 116, 473–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oonk, M.H.; De Hullu, J.A.; Van Der Zee, A.G.J. Current controversies in the management of patients with early-stage vulvar cancer. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2010, 22, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Oonk, M.; van de Nieuuwenhof, H.; van der Zee, A.G.; de Hullu, J.A. Update on the sentinel lymph node procedure in vulvar cancer. Expert. Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2010, 10, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Makar, A.P.H.; Scheistroen, M.; van den Weyngaert, D.; Tropé, C.G. Surgical management of stage I and II vulvar cancer: The role of the sentinel node biopsy. Review of literature. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2001, 11, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Euscher, E. Pathology of sentinel lymph nodes: Historical perspective and current applications in gynecologic cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2020, 30, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Puig-Tintore, L.M.; Ordi, J.; Vidal-Sicart, S.; Lejácegui, J.A.; Torné, A.; Pahisa, J.; Iglesias, X. Further Data on the Usefulness of Sentinel Lymph Node Identification and Ultrastaging in Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003, 88, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oonk, M.H.M.; Hollema, H.; van der Zee, A. Sentinel node biopsy in vulvar cancer: Implications for staging. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015, 29, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oonk, M.H.; van Hemel, B.M.; Hollema, H.; de Hullu, J.A.; Ansink, A.C.; Vergote, I.; Verheijen, R.H.; Maggioni, A.; Gaarenstroom, K.N.; Baldwin, P.J.; et al. Size of sentinel-node metastasis and chances of non-sentinel-node involvement and survival in early stage vulvar cancer: Results from GROINSS-V, a multicentre. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 646–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. de Hullu, J.A.; Doting, E.; Piers, D.A.; Hollema, H.; Aalders, J.G.; Koops, H.S.; Boonstra, H.; van der Zee, A.G.J. Sentinel Lymph Node Identification with Technetium-99m-Labeled Nanocolloid in Squamous Cell Cancer of the Vulva. J. Nucl. Med. 1998, 39, 1381–1385. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. KleinJan, G.H.; Bunschoten, A.; van den Berg, N.S.; Olmos, R.A.V.; Klop, W.M.C.; Horenblas, S.; van der Poel, H.G.; Wester, H.-J.; van Leeuwen, F.W.B. Fluorescence guided surgery and tracer-dose, fact or fiction? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 1857–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Laios, A.; Volpi, D.; Tullis, I.D.C.; Woodward, M.; Kennedy, S.; Pathiraja, P.N.J.; Haldar, K.; Vojnovic, B.; Ahmed, A.A. A prospective pilot study of detection of sentinel lymph nodes in gynaecological cancers using a novel near infrared fluorescence imaging system. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Van Doorn, H.C.; Van Beekhuizen, H.J.; Gaarenstroom, K.N.; Van Der Velden, J.; Van Der Zee, A.G.J.; Oonk, M.H.M.; de Hullu, J.A. Repeat sentinel lymph node procedure in patients with recurrent vulvar squamous cell carcinoma is feasible. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 140, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Winarno, A.S.; Mondal, A.; Martignoni, F.C.; Fehm, T.N.; Hampl, M. The potential risk of contralateral non - sentinel groin node metastasis in women with early primary vulvar cancer following unilateral sentinel node metastasis: A single center evaluation in University Hospital of Düsseldorf. BMC Womens Health 2021, 21, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Crosbie, E.J.; Winter-Roach, B.; Sengupta, P.; Sikand, K.A.; Carrington, B.; Murby, B.; Slade, R.J. The accuracy of the sentinel node procedure after excision biopsy in squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 19, e150–e154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Woelber, L.; Grimm, D.; Vettorazzi, E.; Wisotzki, C.; Trillsch, F.; Jaenicke, F.; Schwarz, J.; Choschzick, M.; Mahner, S. Secondary Sentinel Node Biopsy After Previous Excision of the Primary Tumor in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Vulva. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 1701–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nica, A.; Covens, A.; Vicus, D.; Kupets, R.; Gien, L.T. Long term outcomes in patients with sentinel lymph nodes ( SLNs ) identi fi ed by injecting remaining scar after previously excised vulvar cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 155, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oonk, M.; Slomovitz, B.; Baldwin, P.; van Doorn, H.; van der Velden, J.; de Hullu, J.; Slangen, B.; Gaarenstroom, K.; Vergote, I.; Brannstrom, M.; et al. Radiotherapy instead of inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node: Results of GROINSS-V II. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29, A14. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oonk, M.H.M.; Slomovitz, B.; Baldwin, P.J.W.; van Doorn, H.C.; van der Velden, J.; de Hullu, J.A.; Gaarenstroom, K.N.; Slangen, B.F.M.; Vergote, I.; Brännström, M.; et al. Radiotherapy Versus Inguinofemoral Lymphadenectomy as Treatment for Vulvar Cancer Patients With Micrometastases in the Sentinel Node: Results of GROINSS-V II. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 3623–3632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Way, S.; Benedet, J. Involvement of lnguinal lymph Nodes in Carcinoma of the Vulva. Gynecol. Oncol. 1973, 1, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brincat, M.R.; Baron, Y.M. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Management of Vulvar Carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2017, 27, 1769–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hall, T.B.; Barton, D.P.J.; Trott, P.; Nasiri, N.; Shepherd, J.H.; Thomas, J.M.; Moskovic, E.C. The Role of Ultrasound-guided Cytology of Groin Lymph Nodes in the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Vulva: 5-Year Experience in 44 Patients. Clin. Radiol. 2003, 58, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iversen, T.; Aas, M. Lymph Drainage from the Vulva. Gynecol. Oncol. 1983, 16, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Graafland, N.M.; Leijte, J.A.P.; Valdés Olmos, R.A.; Van Boven, H.H.; Nieweg, O.E.; Horenblas, S. Repeat dynamic sentinel node biopsy in locally recurrent penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2010, 105, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Andersen, K.; Zobbe, V.; Thranov, I.R.; Pedersen, K.D. Relevance of computerized tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with vulvar cancer: A prospective study. Cancer Imaging 2015, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Cohn, D.E.; Dehdashti, F.; Gibb, R.K.; Mutch, D.G.; Rader, J.S.; Siegel, B.A.; Herzog, T.J. Prospective Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography for the Detection of Groin Node Metastases from Vulvar Cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2002, 85, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Bipat, S.; Fransen, G.A.; Spijkerboer, A.M.; van der Velden, J.; Bossuyt, P.M.M.; Zwinderman, A.H.; Stoker, J. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with vulva carcinoma? Gynecol. Oncol. 2006, 103, 1001–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cunningham, C.T.; Quan, H.; Hemmelgarn, B.; Noseworthy, T.; Beck, C.A.; Dixon, E.; Samuel, S.; Ghali, W.A.; Sykes, L.L.; Jetté, N. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015, 15, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Cook, C.; Heath, F.; Thompson, R.L. A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2000, 60, 821–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McFarlane, E.; Olmsted, M.G.; Murphy, J.; Hill, C.A. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians. Eval. Health Prof. 2007, 30, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kellermann, S.; Herold, J. Physician Response to Surveys A Review of the Literature. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2001, 20, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 02048 g001 550
Figure 1. Reported contraindications to the sentinel lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer. 1 = tumor > 4 cm; 2 = previous radiotherapy in the area of the lymphatic drainage; 3 = multifocal tumor; 4 = previous surgery of the groins; 5 = previous excisions of the vulva; 6 = no contraindications; 7 = tumor of the midline; 8 = tumor > 2 cm; 9 = suspicious lymph nodes (clinical examination and/or after imaging procedures); 10 = preexisting chronic conditions of the vulva; 11 = previous chemotherapy; 12 = individual factors.
Figure 1. Reported contraindications to the sentinel lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer. 1 = tumor > 4 cm; 2 = previous radiotherapy in the area of the lymphatic drainage; 3 = multifocal tumor; 4 = previous surgery of the groins; 5 = previous excisions of the vulva; 6 = no contraindications; 7 = tumor of the midline; 8 = tumor > 2 cm; 9 = suspicious lymph nodes (clinical examination and/or after imaging procedures); 10 = preexisting chronic conditions of the vulva; 11 = previous chemotherapy; 12 = individual factors.
Jcm 12 02048 g001
Jcm 12 02048 g002 550
Figure 2. Management after detection of micrometastases (black bars) and management after detection of isolated tumor cells in sentinel nodes (grey bars) in the percentage of respondents. 1 = no further procedures, as the prognostic relevance is unclear; 2 = ipsilateral IL; 3 = ipsilateral radiation without surgical intervention; 4 = individualized procedure.
Figure 2. Management after detection of micrometastases (black bars) and management after detection of isolated tumor cells in sentinel nodes (grey bars) in the percentage of respondents. 1 = no further procedures, as the prognostic relevance is unclear; 2 = ipsilateral IL; 3 = ipsilateral radiation without surgical intervention; 4 = individualized procedure.
Jcm 12 02048 g002
Table
Table 1. Comparison of recommended procedures with regard to sentinel node procedure by different guidelines.
Table 1. Comparison of recommended procedures with regard to sentinel node procedure by different guidelines.
AWMF Guideline [18]ESGO Guideline [16]NCCN Guideline [17]
SN recommended, if feasible
+++
Prerequisite for SN procedure in early-stage vulvar cancer
Preoperative assessmentClinical examination and sonographic imaging of the groins are requiredClinical examination and imaging of the groins (any modality) are requiredClinically/radiologically negative groin nodes
Tumor < 4 cm+++
Unifocallity of the tumor+++
TracerUse of radioactive tracer is mandatory, and use of blue dye is optionalUse of radioactive tracer is mandatory, and use of blue dye is optionalDual tracer recommended (i.e., radiocolloid and dye)
Ultrastaging, if HE staining is negative+++
Expertise of the surgical teamSurgical team/surgeon with expertise in the SN procedureAt least 5 to 10 patients with the SN procedure per year per surgeonSN procedure by high-volume SN surgeon
SN procedure in specific situations
SN procedure after history of previous vulvar surgerynsns-
SN procedure after a previous SN procedurensnsns
Bilateral IL after unilateral positive SN and contralateral negative SN in tumor of the midlineNo sufficient dataContralateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy may be performed when ipsilateral nodes show metastatic diseasens
Procedure after detection of isolated tumor cells or micrometastases in the SNNo sufficient dataAny size of metastatic disease is identified in the sentinel lymph node: inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in the groin with the metastatic sentinel lymph node should be performedIncreased risk for non-SN metastases,
if SLN is positive, completion lymphadenectomy or treatment of the affected groin may be warranted
AWMF, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V.; ESGO, European Society of Gynecologic Oncology; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; SN, sentinel node; IL, inguinal lymph node dissection; HE, hematoxylin and eosin; +, recommended; -, not recommended; ns, not specified.
Table
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of study participants.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of study participants.
% (n/N)
Hospitals
University hospital12.1 (26/215)
Teaching hospital55.3 (119/215)
Hospital offering maximal care7.9 (17/215)
General hospital24.7 (53/215)
Certified gyneco-oncological center
Yes42.3 (91/215)
No67.7 (124/215)
Surgical experience in the field of gyneco-oncology
<10 years16.3 (35/215)
10–15 years19.5 (42/215)
≥15 years64.2 (138/215)
Number of oncological specialists employed
None15.5 (33/213)
130.0 (64/213)
231.5 (67/213)
>223.0 (49/213)
Number of patients with primary vulvar cancer/year/hospital
<1050.2 (106/211)
≥1049.8 (105/211)
Number of patients with recurrent vulvar cancer/year/hospital
<1088.2 (186/211)
≥1011.8 (25/211)
Sentinel node biopsy procedure
No9.5 (20/210)
Yes90.5 (190/210)
N = total number of hospitals providing data to the question; n = number of respondents to the specific answer.
Table
Table 3. Demographic characteristics in the perspective of adherence to current national and international guidelines.
Table 3. Demographic characteristics in the perspective of adherence to current national and international guidelines.
Independent VariableBeing a Certified Gyneco-Oncological Center
(co: Center Not Certified)		Department with ≥10 Patients with Primary Vulvar Cancer/Year
(co: <10 Patients/Year)		Surgical Experience ≥10 Years
(co: <10 Years of Experience)
Dependent Variable
Provide SN procedure
Hospitals offering SN procedureOR 16.743; 95% CI 2.197–127.603; p = 0.007OR 4.545; 95% CI1.465–14.106; p = 0.009OR 0.905; 95% CI 0.250–3.276; p = 0.879
Benefits of SN procedure
Excision of the lymph node with the highest probability of recurrenceOR 1.136; 95% CI 0.652–1.979; p = 0.653OR 1.194; 95% CI 0.688–2.071; p = 0.529OR 1.197; 95% CI 0.557–2.571; p = 0.645
Improved quality of lifeOR 1.193; 95% CI 0.376–3.780; p = 0.765OR 3.626; 95% CI 0.968–13.592; p = 0.056OR 1.022; 95% CI 0.215–4.851; p = 0.978
Less morbidityOR 2.145; 95% CI 0.966–4.766; p = 0.061OR 1.071; 95% CI 0.488–2.353; p = 0.864OR 0.317; 95% CI 0.128–0.784; p = 0.013
Contraindications of SN procedure
Tumor > 4 cmOR 2.761; 95% CI 1.510–5.048; p = 0.001OR 1.680; 95% CI 0.949–2.974; p = 0.075OR 0.260; 95% CI 0.095–0.709; p = 0.008
Multifocal tumorOR 1.695; 95% CI 0.969–2.966; p = 0.065OR 0.944; 95% Ci 0.543–1.639; p = 0.837OR 0.547; 95% CI 0.252–1.186; p = 0.127
Suspicious lymph nodes (clinical examination and/or after imaging procedures)OR 0.420; 95% CI 0.158–1.718; p = 0.284OR 0.599; 95% CI 0.189–1.898; p = 0.384OR 2.422; 95% CI 0.305–19.215; p = 0.402
Previous surgery of the vulvaOR 1.078; 95% CI 0.540–2.149; p = 0.832OR 0.576; 95% CI 0.414–1.634; p = 0.576OR 8.955; 95% C 1.184–67.738; p = 0.034
Previous surgery of the groinsOR 0.757; 95% CI 0.416–1.379; p = 0.363OR 0.687; 95% CI 0.381–1.240; p = 0.213OR 2.807; 95% CI 1.026–7.680; p = 0.044
No contraindicationsOR 0.210; 95% CI 0.070–0.635; p = 0.006OR 0.392; 95% CI 0.162–0.950; p = 0.038OR 5.034; 95% CI 0.657–38.591; p = 0.120
Diagnostic workup previous to SN procedure
No previous imaging procedureOR 2.241; 95% CI 0.200–25.167; p = 0.513OR 1.783; 95% CI 0.159–20.024; p = 0.639OR 0.362; 95% CI 0.032–4.138; p = 0.414
Ultrasound of the groinsOR 1.065; 95% CI0.462–2.451; p = 0.883OR 2.006; 95% CI 0.855–4.707; p = 0.110OR 1.346; 95% CI 0.461–3.929; p = 1.346
LymphoscintigraphyOR 1.823; 95% CI 1.007–3.300; p = 0.048OR 1.036; 95% CI 0.574–1.871; p = 0.906OR 1.485; 95% CI 0.652–3.382; p = 0.346
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)OR 0.291; 95% CI 0.143–0.589; p = 0.001OR 0.603; 95% CI 0.314–1.157; p = 0.128OR 1.1606; 95% CI 0.611–4.224; p = 0.337
Computed tomography (CT scan)OR 0.657; 95% CI 0.362–1.194; p = 0.168OR 0.689; 95% CI 0.384–1.268; p = 0.238OR 0.716; 95% CI 0.319–1.607; p = 0.418
Tracer
99mTcOR 1.884; 95% CI 0.546–6.496; p = 0.316OR 1.639; 95%CI 0.500–5.377; p = 0.415OR 1.085; 95% CI 0.225–5.238; p = 0.919
Methylene blue dyeOR 1.291; 95% CI 0.447–3.726; p = 0.636OR 0.462; 95% CI 0.148–1.438; p = 0.183OR 0.719; 95% CI 0.189–2.733; p = 0.629
Patent blue V dyeOR 1.039; 95% CI 0.548–1.968; p = 0.907OR 1.597; 95% CI 0.833–3.064; p = 0.159OR 1.095; 95% CI 0.450–2.667; p = 0.841
Indocyanine green (ICG)OR 2.148; 95% CI 1.058–4.364; p = 0.034OR 1.986; 95% CI 0.959–4.112; p = 0.065OR 0.274; 95% CI 0.118–0.639; p = 0.003
SN workup
Performing intraoperative frozen sectionOR 0.610; 95% CI 0.307–1.214; p = 0.159OR 0.711; 95% CI 0.358–1.414; p = 0.331OR 1.433; 95% 0.531–3.868; p = 0.477
Ultrastaging of the SNOR 2.451; 95% CI 1.150–5.224; p = 0.020OR 2.686; 95% CI 1.268–5.687; p = 0.010OR 1.548; 95% CI 0.623–3.847; p = 0.346
SN, sentinel node; co, controls; HE, hematoxylin and eosin; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. Significant values are denoted in bold, as statistical significance was at p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schwab, R.; Stewen, K.; Bührer, T.-L.; Schmidt, M.W.; van der Ven, J.; Anic, K.; Linz, V.C.; Hamoud, B.H.; Brenner, W.; Peters, K.; et al. Current Approaches to the Management of Sentinel Node Procedures in Early Vulvar Cancer in Germany: A Web-Based Nationwide Analysis of Practices. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12052048

AMA Style

Schwab R, Stewen K, Bührer T-L, Schmidt MW, van der Ven J, Anic K, Linz VC, Hamoud BH, Brenner W, Peters K, et al. Current Approaches to the Management of Sentinel Node Procedures in Early Vulvar Cancer in Germany: A Web-Based Nationwide Analysis of Practices. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(5):2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12052048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schwab, Roxana, Kathrin Stewen, Theresa-Louise Bührer, Mona W. Schmidt, Josche van der Ven, Katharina Anic, Valerie C. Linz, Bashar Haj Hamoud, Walburgis Brenner, Katharina Peters, and et al. 2023. "Current Approaches to the Management of Sentinel Node Procedures in Early Vulvar Cancer in Germany: A Web-Based Nationwide Analysis of Practices" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 5: 2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12052048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop