Comparison of tracer application methods for sentinel lymph node detection in open surgery patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed. We retrospectively analyzed data f...
Saved in:
| Published in | BMC cancer Vol. 25; no. 1; pp. 638 - 11 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
England
BioMed Central Ltd
08.04.2025
BioMed Central BMC |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.
We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.
The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.
Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side. Conclusions The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Trial registration Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. Registration number: EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Keywords: Endometrial cancer, Sentinel lymph node, Tracer application, Detection success, Detection failure, Risk factors, Laparotomy This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed. We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side. The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.ResultsGroup I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.ConclusionsThe study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.Trial registrationInstitution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. Registration number: EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side. Conclusions The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Trial registration Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. Registration number: EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.BACKGROUNDThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed.We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.RESULTSGroup I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side.The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.CONCLUSIONSThe study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success.Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.TRIAL REGISTRATIONInstitution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.REGISTRATION NUMBEREK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial cancer undergoing laparotomy. Additionally, potential risk factors for SLN detection failure were assessed. We retrospectively analyzed data from 248 endometrial cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery with SLN mapping between January 2020 and March 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Group I + S consisted of 147 women with intracervical and subserosal tracers´application and group I + I included 101 women with intracervical and intrafundal application. Successful detection of SLN on both sides was achieved in 39.9% (99/248) of all patients, in 38.1% (56/147) in the I + S group and in 42.6% (43/101) in the I + I group, respectively. SLNs were identified in 32.7% (81/248) of all patients on only one side of the pelvis, in 31.3% (46/147) in the I + S and in 34.7% (35/101) in the I + I group, respectively. No SLNs were detected in 27.4% (68/248) of all subjects, comprising 30.6% (45/147) from the I + S and 22.8% (23/101) from the I + I group. Although the success rate of SLN detection was higher in the I + I group and on the right side of the pelvis regardless of the detection method, these differences were not statistically significant. An age exceeding 66.3 years was recognized as a critical risk factor for successful detection, other followed factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Additional significant risk factors were identified: depth of tumor myometrial invasion on the right side, history of pelvic surgery, and total tumor volume on the left side. The study did not reveal significant differences in SLN mapping success between the groups receiving intracervical + intrafundal and intracervical + subserosal tracers´applications among endometrial cancer patients treated via open surgery. Overall, older age emerged as the most critical risk factor for SLN detection failure, while other assessed factors did not show a statistically significant impact on overall detection success. Institution University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. EK-VP-21-0-2023. Date of registration 7-JUN-2023. This study was retrospectively registered in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. |
| ArticleNumber | 638 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Matej, Radoslav Hruda, Martin Zapletal, Jan Rob, Lukas Waldauf, Petr Pichlik, Tomas Robova, Helena Halaska, Michael J. Drozenova, Jana Sehnal, Borek |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Borek surname: Sehnal fullname: Sehnal, Borek – sequence: 2 givenname: Petr surname: Waldauf fullname: Waldauf, Petr – sequence: 3 givenname: Radoslav surname: Matej fullname: Matej, Radoslav – sequence: 4 givenname: Martin surname: Hruda fullname: Hruda, Martin – sequence: 5 givenname: Helena surname: Robova fullname: Robova, Helena – sequence: 6 givenname: Jana surname: Drozenova fullname: Drozenova, Jana – sequence: 7 givenname: Tomas surname: Pichlik fullname: Pichlik, Tomas – sequence: 8 givenname: Jan surname: Zapletal fullname: Zapletal, Jan – sequence: 9 givenname: Lukas surname: Rob fullname: Rob, Lukas – sequence: 10 givenname: Michael J. surname: Halaska fullname: Halaska, Michael J. |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40200256$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNptk1uL1TAQgIusuBf9Az5IQBB96Jo0vaS-yLJ4WVgQvDyHnGRymqVNapKunp_iv3XOnnXdI1JIy-Sbr2Qyc1wc-OChKJ4yesqYaF8nVgnRlLRqSlZT3pXiQXHE6o6VVU27g3vfh8VxSleUsk5Q8ag4rGlFMa09Kn6dh2lW0aXgSbAkR6UhEjXPo9MqO4xOkIdgErEhkgQ-Ow8jGTfTPBAfDBADGfQN6VAxgydpiWuIGzKjABMS-eHyQMCbgK7o1Ei08vibN0SRiJGQ5q3hGogOQ4iZpLyYzePioVVjgie375Pi2_t3X88_lpefPlycn12WuhFVLpsVr5XtLTWtqRXUtqcrC7xhfd22oqlAUdZYy1rVtcwKrhrGbK1W1nZac97zk-Ji5zVBXck5uknFjQzKyZtAiGupYnZ6BNlqA5wKY3vToqLqV9xwajvoRMX7lULX251rXlYTGI2nj2rck-7veDfIdbiWjPWCMi7Q8PLWEMP3BVKWk0saxlF5CEuSnAm8Qt63NaLP_0GvwhI91mpLdU1DcflLrRWewHkbtne8lcozweuWt03VIXX6HwofA5PT2HbWYXwv4dVeAjIZfua1WlKSF18-77Mv7rEDqDEPKYzLtmnSPvjsfvnu6vanXRGodoDGpkkR7B3CqNzOhNzNhERa3syEFPw3alb_qA |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.032 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.003 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e73 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002703 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.009 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.08.018 10.1016/j.gore.2022.101080 10.1007/s00404-024-07386-5 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000798 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000847 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a1c0b1 10.3390/jcm12134540 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30068-2 10.18637/jss.v106.i01 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.05.039 10.3389/fonc.2024.1391267 10.1002/ijgo.14307 10.18637/jss.v033.i01 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e29 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000860 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1033 10.1007/s00270-015-1074-7 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.022 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004733 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.003 10.1016/j.ijgc.2024.100068 10.1111/1471-0528.17085 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000447 10.3322/caac.21834 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182a616f6 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.09.030 10.1055/s-0043-1777693 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.07.030 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0006 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.018 10.1111/tog.12872 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003378 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001724 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004486 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002145 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.004 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.034 10.1055/a-2066-2051 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.018 10.3390/jcm9123874 10.3322/caac.21660 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.004 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.11.002 10.48095/cccg2022308 10.1002/ijgo.15315 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.027 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005100 10.1002/jso.27550 10.1001/jama.2017.2068 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2025. The Author(s). COPYRIGHT 2025 BioMed Central Ltd. 2025. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. The Author(s) 2025 2025 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2025. The Author(s). – notice: COPYRIGHT 2025 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: 2025. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: The Author(s) 2025 2025 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM ISR 3V. 7TO 7X7 7XB 88E 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH H94 K9. M0S M1P PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-025-14037-8 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Gale In Context: Science ProQuest Central (Corporate) Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One ProQuest Central Korea Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Medical Database ProQuest ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Open Access资源_DOAJ |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1471-2407 |
| EndPage | 11 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_6cde308df9d64ab29b3d30f7e78239ba PMC11980138 A834636527 40200256 10_1186_s12885_025_14037_8 |
| Genre | Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GeographicLocations | Czech Republic |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Czech Republic |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Univerzita Karlova v Praze grantid: No. 207035 – fundername: Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky grantid: Nr. NW24-09-00505 – fundername: Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky grantid: FTN 00064190 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 53G 5VS 6J9 6PF 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL AAYXX ABDBF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACIHN ACMJI ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CITATION CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EAS EBD EBLON EBS EMB EMK EMOBN ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HMCUK HYE IAO IHR IHW INH INR ISR ITC KQ8 LGEZI LOTEE M1P M48 M~E NADUK NXXTH O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SBL SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS U2A UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM PJZUB PPXIY PMFND 3V. 7TO 7XB 8FK AZQEC DWQXO H94 K9. PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c582t-5b34af9f0d6d4ae4f90bfe3519466852ea015ff16a761f83a511f4abff7cc3393 |
| IEDL.DBID | M48 |
| ISSN | 1471-2407 |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:25:12 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:36:26 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 18:45:18 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 21:02:10 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 21:58:04 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 21:05:14 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 05:14:42 EDT 2025 Thu May 22 21:23:30 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:56:49 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 00:15:33 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Detection success Endometrial cancer Sentinel lymph node Tracer application Laparotomy Detection failure Risk factors |
| Language | English |
| License | 2025. The Author(s). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c582t-5b34af9f0d6d4ae4f90bfe3519466852ea015ff16a761f83a511f4abff7cc3393 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/3187550875?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
| PMID | 40200256 |
| PQID | 3187550875 |
| PQPubID | 44074 |
| PageCount | 11 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_6cde308df9d64ab29b3d30f7e78239ba pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11980138 proquest_miscellaneous_3188083964 proquest_journals_3187550875 gale_infotracmisc_A834636527 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A834636527 gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A834636527 gale_healthsolutions_A834636527 pubmed_primary_40200256 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_025_14037_8 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2025-04-08 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-04-08 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2025 text: 2025-04-08 day: 08 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: London |
| PublicationTitle | BMC cancer |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Cancer |
| PublicationYear | 2025 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central Ltd BioMed Central BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BioMed Central – name: BMC |
| References | B Geppert (14037_CR31) 2017; 145 S Dioun (14037_CR26) 2022; 129 EC Rossi (14037_CR45) 2017; 18 14037_CR17 H Sung (14037_CR2) 2021; 71 D Altın (14037_CR20) 2022; 164 AJ Bodurtha Smith (14037_CR38) 2017; 216 JK Tay (14037_CR9) 2023; 106 E Jaafar (14037_CR52) 2024; 165 G Insalaco (14037_CR57) 2024; 309 C Fotopoulou (14037_CR24) 2019; 29 J Persson (14037_CR46) 2019; 116 Z Marchocki (14037_CR47) 2023; 173 14037_CR23 P Vinklerová (14037_CR13) 2022; 87 MS Fan (14037_CR37) 2024; 14 A Collins (14037_CR43) 2023; 25 K Matsuo (14037_CR27) 2022; 139 H Niikura (14037_CR30) 2013; 131 B Segarra-Vidal (14037_CR19) 2021; 138 BA Schlappe (14037_CR51) 2018; 151 H Robova (14037_CR35) 2009; 19 B Cormier (14037_CR39) 2015; 138 MM Leitao (14037_CR12) 2020; 156 J Zuo (14037_CR32) 2019; 26 AA Garrett (14037_CR60) 2022; 44 S Sawicki (14037_CR36) 2015; 25 S Terada (14037_CR14) 2023; 12 G Bogani (14037_CR50) 2024; 35 G Emons (14037_CR61) 2021; 31 Ş Gezer (14037_CR21) 2020; 30 14037_CR7 S Sanjida (14037_CR16) 2021; 31 H Malikova (14037_CR28) 2024; 14 N Abu-Rustum (14037_CR4) 2023; 21 G Baiocchi (14037_CR63) 2022; 32 A Ditto (14037_CR33) 2020; 140 WJ Youden (14037_CR10) 1950; 3 RW Holloway (14037_CR6) 2017; 146 AM Perrone (14037_CR34) 2008; 111 D Cibula (14037_CR54) 2010; 116 M Sant (14037_CR3) 2015; 51 L Salman (14037_CR11) 2024; 129 M Janda (14037_CR15) 2017; 317 F Bray (14037_CR1) 2024; 74 L Lecointre (14037_CR53) 2020; 9 MHM Oonk (14037_CR42) 2023; 33 J Mauro (14037_CR58) 2024; 34 J Friedman (14037_CR8) 2010; 33 JA Ducie (14037_CR48) 2017; 147 14037_CR44 G Sozzi (14037_CR59) 2020; 30 14037_CR49 MC Cusimano (14037_CR18) 2019; 221 GS Accorsi (14037_CR41) 2020; 27 A Jankulovska (14037_CR22) 2023; 22 H Nagar (14037_CR40) 2021; 6 JY Park (14037_CR62) 2022; 33 S Taşkın (14037_CR56) 2020; 30 N Concin (14037_CR5) 2021; 154 A Dick (14037_CR25) 2023; 160 14037_CR55 EC Rossi (14037_CR29) 2013; 23 |
| References_xml | – volume: 111 start-page: 62 issue: 1 year: 2008 ident: 14037_CR34 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.032 – volume: 116 start-page: 33 issue: 1 year: 2010 ident: 14037_CR54 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.003 – volume: 33 start-page: e73 issue: 6 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR62 publication-title: J Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e73 – volume: 31 start-page: 1075 issue: 7 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR61 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002703 – volume: 164 start-page: 492 issue: 3 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR20 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.009 – volume: 131 start-page: 299 issue: 2 year: 2013 ident: 14037_CR30 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.08.018 – volume: 140 start-page: 1 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR33 publication-title: Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990 – volume: 44 start-page: 101080 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR60 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol Rep doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.101080 – volume: 309 start-page: 2779 issue: 6 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR57 publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07386-5 – volume: 29 start-page: 1348 issue: 9 year: 2019 ident: 14037_CR24 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000798 – volume: 51 start-page: 2191 issue: 15 year: 2015 ident: 14037_CR3 publication-title: Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990 – volume: 30 start-page: 299 issue: 3 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR56 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000847 – ident: 14037_CR7 – volume: 19 start-page: 391 issue: 3 year: 2009 ident: 14037_CR35 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a1c0b1 – volume: 12 start-page: 4540 issue: 13 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR14 publication-title: J Clin Med doi: 10.3390/jcm12134540 – volume: 18 start-page: 384 issue: 3 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR45 publication-title: Lancet Oncol doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30068-2 – volume: 106 start-page: 1 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR9 publication-title: J Stat Softw doi: 10.18637/jss.v106.i01 – volume: 138 start-page: 478 issue: 2 year: 2015 ident: 14037_CR39 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.05.039 – volume: 14 start-page: 1391267 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR37 publication-title: Front Oncol doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1391267 – volume: 160 start-page: 220 issue: 1 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR25 publication-title: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14307 – volume: 33 start-page: 1 issue: 1 year: 2010 ident: 14037_CR8 publication-title: J Stat Softw doi: 10.18637/jss.v033.i01 – volume: 116 start-page: 77 year: 2019 ident: 14037_CR46 publication-title: Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990 – volume: 35 start-page: e29 issue: 1 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR50 publication-title: J Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e29 – volume: 30 start-page: 325 issue: 3 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR21 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000860 – volume: 216 start-page: 459 issue: 5 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR38 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1033 – ident: 14037_CR55 doi: 10.1007/s00270-015-1074-7 – volume: 151 start-page: 235 issue: 2 year: 2018 ident: 14037_CR51 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.022 – volume: 14 start-page: 810 issue: 8 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR28 publication-title: Diagn Basel Switz – volume: 3 start-page: 32 issue: 1 year: 1950 ident: 14037_CR10 publication-title: Cancer doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 – volume: 139 start-page: 809 issue: 5 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR27 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004733 – volume: 156 start-page: 147 issue: 1 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR12 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.003 – ident: 14037_CR44 doi: 10.1016/j.ijgc.2024.100068 – volume: 129 start-page: 1591 issue: 9 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR26 publication-title: BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17085 – volume: 25 start-page: 1044 issue: 6 year: 2015 ident: 14037_CR36 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000447 – volume: 74 start-page: 229 issue: 3 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR1 publication-title: CA Cancer J Clin doi: 10.3322/caac.21834 – volume: 138 start-page: 828 issue: 6 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR19 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 23 start-page: 1704 issue: 9 year: 2013 ident: 14037_CR29 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182a616f6 – volume: 147 start-page: 541 issue: 3 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR48 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.09.030 – volume: 22 start-page: 261 issue: 4 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR22 publication-title: World J Nucl Med doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1777693 – volume: 27 start-page: 938 issue: 4 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR41 publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.07.030 – volume: 21 start-page: 181 issue: 2 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR4 publication-title: J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0006 – volume: 6 start-page: CD013021 issue: 6 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR40 publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 154 start-page: 327 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR5 publication-title: Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.018 – volume: 25 start-page: 210 issue: 3 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR43 publication-title: Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/tog.12872 – volume: 32 start-page: 676 issue: 5 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR63 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003378 – volume: 30 start-page: 1713 issue: 11 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR59 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001724 – volume: 33 start-page: 1023 issue: 7 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR42 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004486 – volume: 31 start-page: 530 issue: 4 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR16 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002145 – volume: 173 start-page: 41 year: 2023 ident: 14037_CR47 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.004 – ident: 14037_CR49 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.034 – ident: 14037_CR23 doi: 10.1055/a-2066-2051 – volume: 145 start-page: 256 issue: 2 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR31 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.018 – volume: 9 start-page: 3874 issue: 12 year: 2020 ident: 14037_CR53 publication-title: J Clin Med doi: 10.3390/jcm9123874 – volume: 71 start-page: 209 issue: 3 year: 2021 ident: 14037_CR2 publication-title: CA Cancer J Clin doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 – volume: 221 start-page: 410 issue: 5 year: 2019 ident: 14037_CR18 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.004 – volume: 26 start-page: 1125 issue: 6 year: 2019 ident: 14037_CR32 publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.11.002 – volume: 87 start-page: 308 issue: 5 year: 2022 ident: 14037_CR13 publication-title: Ceska Gynekol doi: 10.48095/cccg2022308 – volume: 165 start-page: 677 issue: 2 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR52 publication-title: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15315 – volume: 146 start-page: 405 issue: 2 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR6 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.027 – ident: 14037_CR17 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2 – volume: 34 start-page: 824 issue: 6 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR58 publication-title: Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005100 – volume: 129 start-page: 117 issue: 1 year: 2024 ident: 14037_CR11 publication-title: J Surg Oncol doi: 10.1002/jso.27550 – volume: 317 start-page: 1224 issue: 12 year: 2017 ident: 14037_CR15 publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068 |
| SSID | ssj0017808 |
| Score | 2.43882 |
| Snippet | This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with endometrial... Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with... BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in women with... Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different tracers´ application techniques for sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 638 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Cancer Cancer patients Cancer therapies Care and treatment Comparative analysis Detection failure Detection success Endometrial cancer Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery Endometrium Female Health aspects Hospital patients Humans Hysterectomy Laparotomy Lymph nodes Lymphatic Metastasis Lymphatic system Mapping Medical examination Methods Methylene blue Middle Aged Myometrium Oncology Oncology, Experimental Patients Pelvis Physiological aspects Radioactive tracers Rankings Regression analysis Retrospective Studies Risk factors Sentinel lymph node Sentinel Lymph Node - diagnostic imaging Sentinel Lymph Node - pathology Sentinel Lymph Node - surgery Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - methods Statistical analysis Surgery Therapeutics, Surgical Tracer application Tracers Tracers (Biology) Tumors Uterine cancer Uterus Variables |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Open Access资源_DOAJ dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV09b9YwELZQB8SCKJ-BAgdCYkBR89qJY7OViqoglQGo1M1yYhsqlaRK8g79Kfxb7pwPvREDC0uG-BIlfs7ns333HGNvCl7USigqaMKJVFu6VNuAxrASla2FKFzchzz7Ik_P888XxcVOqS-KCRvpgceOO5S18yJTLmgnc1txXQknslB6nNqErqJrhHPevJiazg9Klak5RUbJwx6tsKJM5CIlfjr8lNU0FNn6_7bJO5PSOmByZwY6ucfuTq4jHI2fvM9u-eY-u302HY4_YL-Pl5qC0AbAV9S-g50TahjLRfeAjipQ0hE-dgVXNwgoNK3z4PwQI7MauMRXXPsG-jFrGib61R5o3xZ849pfPhb8gJrUpnsPFjq8086Zm0CVd7sBIn3tQ3Z-8vH78Wk6VV5I60LxIS0qkdugQ-aky63Pg86q4KmWXy6lKri36EWEsJG2lJughEW3LSA6IZQ1AqzFI7bXtI1_wsDKqrI28ICeZC55bjV6yNapnJfc69on7N0MhLkeCTZMXJgoaUbYDMJmImxGJewDYbVIEjl2vIEqYyaVMf9SmYS9JKTNmGm6DHFzpATRpxW8TNjrKEEEGQ1F4Pyw2743n759XQm9nYRCS5DaKaEB_5s4tVaSBytJHMH1unlWOTNZkN6grS1x9YiXhL1amulJioprfLuNMqjnQss8YY9HDV16hvYFyJ9NmFrp7qrr1i3N5c_IL77ZaEUH2E__R2c_Y3c4jTsKdlIHbG_otv45-nFD9SIO2T8A90kt priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection dbid: 7X7 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELagSIgL4k2gwICQOKCoWTtxHC6oVFQFqRyASnuznNhuK5VkSXYP_BT-LTOON2yExGUP8STyZh7-Ys98w9jrgheNEooamnAi1ZY2rYzHYFiL2jRCFDbsQ55-kSdn-edlsYwbbkNMq9zGxBCobdfQHvkB2l6JaBp_3q9-ptQ1ik5XYwuN6-wGUZdRSle5nD64FqXK1LZQRsmDAWOxonrkIiWWOpzQbDEKnP3_RuadpWmeNrmzDh3fYbcjgITDUeN32TXX3mM3T-MR-X32-2jqLAidB3xE43rYOaeGsWn0AAhXgUqP8LYruPqFaoW2sw6sW4f8rBYu8REr18Iw1k5DJGEdgHZvwbW2--FC2w9oyHj6d2Cgxyvdtn4TqP9uv4ZAYvuAnR1__H50ksb-C2lTKL5Oi1rkxlc-s9LmxuW-ymrvqKNfLqUquDOIJbxfSFPKhVfCIHjzuam9LxtUcyUesr22a91jBkbWtTGee8STueS5qRAnG6tyXnJXNS5hb7eK0KuRZkOHzxMl9ag2jWrTQW1aJewD6WqSJIrscKHrz3X0OC0b60SmrK-sxEnxqhZWZL50iIlEVZuEvSBN67HedHJ0fagEkagVvEzYqyBBNBkt5eGcm80w6E_fvs6E3kQh35FKTSxrwP9NzFozyf2ZJPpxMx_empyOcWTQf60-YS-nYbqTcuNa122CDNq5qGSesEejhU5vhnYHCNUmTM1sd_bq5iPt5UVgGUeHUnSM_eT_83rKbnHyKEpmUvtsb91v3DPEaev6eXDGPwIfP9Y priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | Comparison of tracer application methods for sentinel lymph node detection in open surgery patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40200256 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3187550875 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3188083964 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC11980138 https://doaj.org/article/6cde308df9d64ab29b3d30f7e78239ba |
| Volume | 25 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3di9QwEA_3AeKL-G31XKMIPsh6u0mbpILI7XHHKewhqwuLLyFtkvNgbbXdBe9P8b91Jm3XLR6-9KGZpm3mI5NM5jeEvExYkiuusKAJQ1BtYYep8WAMM56ZnPPEhn3I6bk4m8cfF8lih3TljtoBrK9d2mE9qXm1fPPr59V7UPh3QeGVOKzBxirMM06GiD4HL9ol-zAzSVTUafw3qiBVqFA3BoOMUQXZJdFc20dvogp4_v9a7a1pq3-kcmuOOr1NbrXOJT1qpOEO2XHFXXJj2obP75Hfx5uqg7T0FLrIXUW3Yti0KShdU3BlKaYlwWNLurwCltOitI5atwpntwp6CV3ASNG6yaumLUBrTXFnl7rClt9dKAlCcxSs6i01tII7ZZfbSbE2b7WiAeD2Ppmfnnw5Phu2tRmGeaLYaphkPDY-9SMrbGxc7NNR5h1W-4uFUAlzBvwM78fCSDH2ihtw7HxsMu9lDiKQ8gdkrygL94hQI7LMGM88-JqxYLFJwYc2VsVMMpfmLiKvO0boHw0Ehw5LFyV0wzYNbNOBbVpFZIK82lAifHa4UVYXutVGLXLr-EhZn1oBH8XSjFs-8tKBv8TTzETkGXJaN7moGyOgjxRHgLWEyYi8CBQIoVHgGZ0Ls65r_eHzrEf0qiXyJbLUtCkP8N-IutWjPOhRgo7n_eZO5HSnIhqssYT1JVwi8nzTjE_iubnCletAAzLPUxFH5GEjoZuRwZ0D9Hgjonqy2xu6fktx-S0gkI_HqcIQ9-P_f_YTcpOhRuFBJ3VA9lbV2j0FH26VDciuXMgB2Z-cnH-aDcJOyCAoK1xnk69_AJvDSRA |
| linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1fb9MwELemTQJeEP8JDGYQiAcUrbUT10FCaBubWrZWaGzS3owT22PSSErSCu2j8CX4jNw5f2iExNte-hBfItd3vjv77n5HyKuYxZnkEhuaMATVFiZMtANlmPJUZ5zHxt9DTmdifBp9OovP1sjvthYG0ypbnegVtSkyvCPfBtkbgTcNPx_mP0LsGoXR1baFRi0Wh_bqJxzZqveTj8Df14wd7J_sjcOmq0CYxZItwjjlkXaJGxhhIm0jlwxSZ7FPXSSEjJnVYCGdGwoNJ3wnuQaXxEU6dW6UweQRfAlU_kbE4SizTjZ292efj7u4xUgOZFuaI8V2BdpfYgV0HCIuHixBz_z5LgH_2oIVY9hP1FyxfAd3yO3GZaU7tYzdJWs2v0duTJug_H3ya6_rZUgLR-ETmS3pSmSc1m2qKwoOMsViJ3jtkl5egSDRvDCWGrvwGWE5vYBPzG1Oq7pamzawrxXF-2Jqc1N8t77RCM1QXMt3VNMSnhRtxSjFjr_lgnrY3Afk9Fp485Cs50VuHxOqRZpq7ZgDDzYSLNIJeObayIiNmE0yG5C3LSPUvAb2UP5AJIWq2aaAbcqzTcmA7CKvOkoE5fYPivJcNXtcicxYPpDGJUbApFiScsMHbmTBC-NJqgOyhZxWdYVrp1rUjuQI2xazUUBeegoE5sgx8-dcL6tKTb4c94jeNESuQJbqppAC_jdiefUoN3uUoDmy_nArcqrRXJX6u88C8qIbxjcxGy-3xdLTgJzzREQBeVRLaLcyeB-BfnRAZE92e0vXH8kvvnlc8-EwkRg4f_L_eW2Rm-OT6ZE6mswOn5JbDHcXplLJTbK-KJf2GXiJi_R5szUp-Xrd2uAPjtF-qQ |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+tracer+application+methods+for+sentinel+lymph+node+detection+in+open+surgery+patients+with+endometrial+cancer%3A+a+retrospective+cohort+study&rft.jtitle=BMC+cancer&rft.au=Sehnal%2C+Borek&rft.au=Waldauf%2C+Petr&rft.au=Matej%2C+Radoslav&rft.au=Hruda%2C+Martin&rft.date=2025-04-08&rft.pub=BioMed+Central+Ltd&rft.issn=1471-2407&rft.eissn=1471-2407&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12885-025-14037-8&rft.externalDocID=A834636527 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon |