- Life Science
- Flow cytometry
- Digital pathology
- QC & Online Services
- Document Centre
- Knowledge Centre
- Clinic & Laboratory
Select your local website
In Europe, more than 600,000 men are newly diagnosed with a urological malignancy each year,1 with prostate cancer being the most frequent. If they are found early, these kinds of cancer are highly treatable and in some cases, surgery alone can be curative.2-3 Yet the standard procedure often includes extended lymphadenectomy which may lead to serious post-surgical morbidity. A less invasive alternative, the sentinel lymph node biopsy approach, is currently being evaluated in several trials with very promising outcomes.4-6
Sysmex is supporting the advancement of healthcare with an innovative solution.
- Your patients can avoid unnecessary lymphadenectomies and related morbidities thanks to the sentinel lymph node biopsy concept.
- You no longer need radioactive markers to detect sentinel lymph nodes as the Sentimag®/Magtrace® system detects them magnetically.
- Ferlay J et al. (2013): Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 49(6):1374-403.
- Bekelman JE et al. (2018): Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol.:JCO1800606.
- Mottet N et al. (2017): EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 71(4):618-629.
- van der Poel HG et al. (2017): Sentinel Node Prostate Cancer Consensus Panel Group members. Sentinel node biopsy for prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel meeting. BJU Int. 120(2):204-211.
- van der Poel HG et al. (2017): Sentinel node biopsy and lymphatic mapping in penile and prostate cancer. Urologe A. 56(1):13-17.
- Wit EMK et al. (2017): Sentinel Node Procedure in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review to Assess Diagnostic Accuracy. Eur Urol. 71(4):596-605.