4.5 Article

SENTICOL III: an international validation study of sentinel node biopsy in early cervical cancer. A GINECO, ENGOT, GCIG and multicenter study

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000332

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Radical hysterectomy and complete pelvic lymphadenectomies are the most commonly performed procedures for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping could be an alternative to routine pelvic lymphadenectomy, aiming to diagnose accurately nodal extension and decrease lymphatic morbidity. Primary Objective To compare 3-year disease-free survival and health-related quality of life after SLN biopsy or SLN biopsy + pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer. Study Hypothesis We hypothesize that disease-free survival is non-inferior and health-related quality of life superior after SLN biopsy compared with SLN biopsy + pelvic lymphadenectomy. Trial Design International, randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial. The study will be run by teams trained to carry out SLN biopsy, belonging to clinical research cooperative groups or recognized as experts in this field. Patients with an optimal mapping (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC] criteria) and a negative frozen section will be randomized 1:1 to SLN biopsy only or SLN biopsy + pelvic lymphadenectomy. Inclusion, Exclusion Criteria Patients with early stages (Ia1 with lymphovascular invasion to IIa1) of disease. Histological types are limited to squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma. Primary Endpoint Main endpoint will be co-primary endpoint, associating 3-year disease-free survival and quality of life (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CX24). Sample Size 950 patients need to be randomized. Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting results: study started on Q2 2018, last accrual is scheduled for Q2 2021, and last follow-up in Q2 2026.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据