Concordance Between Intracervical and Fundal Injections for Sentinel Node Mapping in Patients With Endometrial Cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A major controversy in sentinel node (SN) biopsy of endometrial cancer is the injection site of mapping material. We compared lymphatic drainage pathways of the uterine cervix and uterine body in the same patients by head-to-head comparison of intracervical radiotracer and fundal blue dye injections. METHODS: All patients with pathologically proven endometrial cancer were included. Each patient received 2 intracervical injections of Tc-phytate. At the time of laparotomy, the uterus was exposed, and each patient was injected with 2 aliquots of patent blue V (2 mL each) in the subserosal fundal midline locations. The anatomical locations of all hot, blue, or hot/blue SNs were recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 45 patients entered the study. At least 1 SN could be identified in 75 of 90 hemipelves (83.3% overall detection rate, 82.2% for radiotracer [intracervical] alone, and 81.1% for blue dye [fundal] alone). In 71 hemipelves, SNs were identified with both blue dye (fundal) and radiotracer (intracervical) injections. In 69 of these 71 hemipelves, at least 1 blue/hot SN could be identified (97.18% concordance rate). In 10 patients, para-aortic SNs were identified. All of these nodes were identified by fundal blue dye injection, and only 2 were hot. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that lymphatic drainage to the pelvic area from the uterine corpus matches the lymphatic pathways from the cervix, and both intracervical and fundal injections of SN mapping materials go to the same pelvic SNs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".