Diagnostic Accuracy of Indocyanine Green–stained Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY European Urology Open Science Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1016/j.euros.2025.02.002
Yi-Ju Chou , Chia-Lun Chang , Yao-Chou Tsai
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Indocyanine Green–stained Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Yi-Ju Chou ,&nbsp;Chia-Lun Chang ,&nbsp;Yao-Chou Tsai","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2025.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Indocyanine green-guided sentinel lymph node dissection (ICG-SLND) has demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ICG-SLND at both the per-patient and the per-node level.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a literature search on PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published up to June 2024. The inclusion criteria were prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, ICG-SLND, and subsequent extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Data were extracted to calculate the pooled sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) at both the per-patient and the per-node level.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Our search identified 13 relevant studies, comprising a total of 748 patients. All studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. At the per-patient level, the pooled sensitivity of ICG-SLND for diagnosing lymph node metastasis was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–0.92), with a pooled NPV of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90–0.98). At the per-node level, the pooled sensitivity was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45–0.62), and the pooled NPV was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97–0.98). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the per-node level sensitivity, NPV, and sentinel lymph node detection rate outcomes. The primary limitation is the lack of investigation into the impact of ICG-SLND on survival outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>The per-patient level sensitivity of ICG-SLND for diagnosing lymph node metastases is 87%, which better represents the diagnostic accuracy of ICG-SLND than the per-node level sensitivity. As ePLND has demonstrated a positive impact on oncologic outcomes, ICG-SLND cannot yet be recommended as the standard lymph node dissection approach. The significant heterogeneity observed in the pooled results highlights the need for further research to determine the optimal injection methods.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Indocyanine green–guided sentinel lymph node dissection (ICG-SLND) has demonstrated favorable performance for diagnosing lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. The per-patient level sensitivity of ICG-SLND provides better diagnostic performance than its per-node level sensitivity. However, further research is needed for ICG-SLND to be recommended as the standard approach for lymph node dissection.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":"74 ","pages":"Pages 34-43"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Urology Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168325000618","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective

Indocyanine green-guided sentinel lymph node dissection (ICG-SLND) has demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ICG-SLND at both the per-patient and the per-node level.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published up to June 2024. The inclusion criteria were prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, ICG-SLND, and subsequent extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Data were extracted to calculate the pooled sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) at both the per-patient and the per-node level.

Key findings and limitations

Our search identified 13 relevant studies, comprising a total of 748 patients. All studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. At the per-patient level, the pooled sensitivity of ICG-SLND for diagnosing lymph node metastasis was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–0.92), with a pooled NPV of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90–0.98). At the per-node level, the pooled sensitivity was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45–0.62), and the pooled NPV was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97–0.98). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the per-node level sensitivity, NPV, and sentinel lymph node detection rate outcomes. The primary limitation is the lack of investigation into the impact of ICG-SLND on survival outcomes.

Conclusions and clinical implications

The per-patient level sensitivity of ICG-SLND for diagnosing lymph node metastases is 87%, which better represents the diagnostic accuracy of ICG-SLND than the per-node level sensitivity. As ePLND has demonstrated a positive impact on oncologic outcomes, ICG-SLND cannot yet be recommended as the standard lymph node dissection approach. The significant heterogeneity observed in the pooled results highlights the need for further research to determine the optimal injection methods.

Patient summary

Indocyanine green–guided sentinel lymph node dissection (ICG-SLND) has demonstrated favorable performance for diagnosing lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. The per-patient level sensitivity of ICG-SLND provides better diagnostic performance than its per-node level sensitivity. However, further research is needed for ICG-SLND to be recommended as the standard approach for lymph node dissection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前列腺癌患者吲哚菁绿前哨淋巴结的诊断准确性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景与目的吲哚菁绿色引导前哨淋巴结清扫术(ICG-SLND)对前列腺癌淋巴结转移具有较好的诊断准确性。本研究旨在对每个患者和每个淋巴结水平的ICG-SLND诊断准确性进行荟萃分析。方法在PubMed和Embase上检索截至2024年6月已发表的相关研究。纳入标准为前列腺癌患者行根治性前列腺切除术、ICG-SLND和随后的扩展盆腔淋巴结清扫(ePLND)。提取数据以计算每个患者和每个节点水平的汇总敏感性和阴性预测值(NPV)。主要发现和局限性我们检索了13项相关研究,共纳入748例患者。所有研究均被评估为低偏倚风险。在每例患者水平上,ICG-SLND诊断淋巴结转移的综合敏感性为0.87(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.77-0.92),综合NPV为0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98)。在每个节点水平上,合并敏感性为0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62),合并净现值为0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.98)。在每个淋巴结水平的敏感性、NPV和前哨淋巴结检出率结果中观察到显著的异质性。主要的限制是缺乏对ICG-SLND对生存结果影响的调查。结论及临床意义ICG-SLND诊断淋巴结转移的个体水平敏感性为87%,优于ICG-SLND的个体水平敏感性。由于ePLND已被证明对肿瘤预后有积极影响,ICG-SLND尚不能被推荐为标准的淋巴结清扫方法。在汇总结果中观察到的显著异质性表明需要进一步研究以确定最佳注射方法。多青碱绿色引导前哨淋巴结清扫术(ICG-SLND)在诊断前列腺癌淋巴结转移方面表现良好。ICG-SLND的每患者水平敏感性比其每节点水平敏感性提供更好的诊断性能。然而,是否推荐ICG-SLND作为淋巴结清扫的标准入路还有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Urology Open Science
European Urology Open Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1183
审稿时长
49 days
期刊最新文献
First Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy Using the DEXTER Robotic Surgery System. Evaluation of the Transition from Holmium:YAG to Pulsed Thulium:YAG for Laser Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate and the Effect on Procedural Performance Perineural Invasion in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens and Its Association with Biochemical Recurrence and Survival in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Perioperative Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Combined with Radical Cystectomy: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Re: Rui M. Bernardino, Leyi B. Yin, Katherine Lajkosz, et al. Intraductal Carcinoma Predicts Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of a Prospective Trial. Eur Urol Open Sci 2025;82:52–8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1