Survival Advantage of Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Ovarian Cancer.

We investigated the survival effect of lymphadenectomy in ovarian cancer. The five-year progression-free and overall survival in early-stage ovarian cancer were not affected. Preliminary, unadjusted analysis in advanced ovarian cancer suggested an improvement in survival. However, after adjusting for other factors, e.g. ECOG performance status and patients' age, this survival advantage vanished. Our analysis suggests that systemic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was not associated with an improvement of the progression-free and overall survival of patients with optimally debulked ovarian cancer.

Contralateral lymph node metastases in patients with vulvar cancer and unilateral sentinel lymph node metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of contralateral lymph node metastases following unilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases in patients with vulvar cancer(s) remains to be systematically assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry-based study of 476 patients with vulvar cancer. The primary outcome measure was the rate of contralateral non-SLN metastases in the case of positive unilateral SLN. RESULTS: Out of 476 patients with primary vulvar cancer, 202 received SLN biopsy: 58 unilateral and 144 bilateral. Out of 66 patients with unilateral metastatic SLN, 62 (93.9%) received contralateral lymphadenectomy-18 after unilateral and 44 after bilateral SLN biopsy. In the study group, 132 SLN were assessed with a median number of 2 (range 1-4) per patient and 76 of these were positive. Lymph node-positivity was associated with advanced tumor stage, as well as lymph and vascular space invasion. In the group of patients with bilateral inguino-femoral lymphadenectomy, 1004 lymph nodes were resected with a median number of 15 (range 10-29) per patient. After full dissection of the inguino-femoral lymph nodes, no contralateral non-SLN metastases were found. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of contralateral non-SLN metastases in patients with unilateral SLN metastases was low. Therefore, the impact of contralateral lymphadenectomy on patient survival should be investigated in further studies.

Systematic lymphadenectomy in early stage endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: The positive effect of systematic lymphadenectomy on survival of patients with endometrial cancer is a topic of ongoing debate. METHODS: We aimed to investigate whether systemic lymphadenectomy is beneficial for patients with early endometrial cancer. For this purpose, we analyzed a population-based registry with of 2392 women with endometrioid endometrial cancer, stage I and II at intermediate and high risk of recurrence. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. RESULTS: After exclusions, 868 women were eligible for analysis. Of those, 511 and 357 were categorized as intermediate (pT1A G3 and pT1B G1-2) and high risk (pT1B G3 and pT2 G1-3) early stage endometrial cancer, respectively. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 527 (60.7%) of the cases. Patients in the lymphadenectomy group were significantly younger, presented with more tumors of intermediate or undifferentiated grade and exhibited significantly lower co-morbidity rates and Eastern Cooperative of Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Median follow-up was 6.7 years. Recurrence-free survival was not improved by lymphadenectomy in the intermediate and high-risk group of patients. During the follow-up period, 111 (12.8%) women had disease recurrence and 302 (34.8%) died. Systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with significant improvement of overall survival in the pT1A G3 and pT1B G3 patient subgroups. Notably, adjustment for patient age and ECOG status abolished the improvement of overall survival by systematic lymphadenectomy in all groups. Thus, lymphadenectomy did not improve recurrence-free survival in the intermediate risk or the high-risk group of patients CONCLUSIONS: Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy did not improve the survival of patients with early stage I and II endometrioid endometrial cancer at intermediate and high risk of recurrence.

Comparison of survival of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel node biopsy alone or systematic lymphadenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recently, sentinel lymph node mapping was introduced in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer as alternative to systematic lymphadenectomy. However, the survival impact of sentinel node mapping is not well characterized yet. METHODS: We performed retrospective study of 104 patients with endometrial cancer treated with sentinel lymph node alone (n = 52) or with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (n = 52). For sentinel node mapping, indocyanine green was used. The outcome measure was disease-free survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 42 months. Fifty-two patients staged by sentinel lymph node mapping were matched in 1:1 ratio with 52 patients staged by lymphadenectomy using patient age, histological type, tumor stage, tumor grade and lymph and vascular space invasion as matching criteria. The median number of removed lymph node was 3 (range 1-6) and 36 (13-63) in the sentinel and lymphadenectomy group, respectively. The rate of lymph node metastases was not significantly higher in the sentinel group (19.2%) in comparison with the lymphadenectomy group (14.3%). The overall detection rate of sentinel lymph nodes was 100% with a bilateral mapping of 98.1%. Most of the 152 lymph nodes identified and removed were localized in upper paracervical pathway (n = 143, 94.1%). During the follow-up period, overall 21 (20.2%) events were observed, 8 (15.4%) in the sentinel group and 13 (25.0%) in the lymphadenectomy group. The estimated disease-free survival was 84.6% and 75.0% for patients in the sentinel and lymphadenectomy groups, respectively. The survival curves demonstrated similar disease-free survival in two groups (p = 0.774). CONCLUSION: Sentinel lymph node mapping did not compromise the outcome of patients with endometrial cancer.

Lymph node micrometastases and outcome of endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between nodal micrometastases and clinical outcome of endometrial cancer is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry-based study of 2392 patients with endometrial cancer with and without nodal micrometastases. The primary outcome measure was disease-free survival. RESULTS: After exclusions, the final study involved 428 patients: 302 (70.6%) with node-negative endometrial cancer, who did not receive adjuvant treatment, 95 (22.2%) with nodal micrometastases who received adjuvant treatment, and 31 (7.2%) with nodal micrometastases who did not receive adjuvant treatment. The median follow-up was 84.8 months. Without adjuvant therapy the disease-free survival in the cohort of patients with micrometastases was significantly reduced as compared with disease-free survival in the node-negative cohort (p = 0.0001). With adjuvant therapy the median disease-free survival of patients with nodal micrometastases was similar with those of node-negative patients (p = 0.648). The adjusted hazard ratio for disease events among patients with micrometastases and no adjuvant therapy, as compared with node-negative patients, was 2.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-3.95). In the cohort with micrometastases the relative risk of events was significantly decreased by adjuvant therapy (HR 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.65) even after adjustment for age at diagnosis, myometrial invasion, histological grade and type, and performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal micrometastases are associated with decreased disease-free survival of patients with endometrial cancer. Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved disease-free survival of patients with micrometastases.

Oncologic Outcome of Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recently, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer as an alternative to systematic lymph node dissection (LND). However, the survival impact of SLNB is not yet well characterised. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 419 patients with endometrial cancer treated with SLNB alone or with pelvic and para-aortic LND. For SLNB mapping, indocyanine green was used. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 66 months. After exclusions, 337 patients were eligible for analysis. Of them, 150 underwent SLNB and 187 LND. During the follow-up time, 27 (24.7%) of the 150 who underwent SLNB and 54 (28.9%) of the 187 who underwent LND were diagnosed with recurrent disease (p = 0.459). The estimated 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.7% and 72.2% for patients in the SLNB and LND group, respectively (p = 0.419). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 80.7% and 77.0% in the SLNB and LND group, respectively (p = 0.895). Survival rates were similar in both groups independent of lymph node status. Multivariable analysis confirmed that the staging approach was not associated with oncological outcome. For patients without lymph node metastases, patient outcome was worsened by advanced tumour stage and non-endometrioid tumour histology. In the group of patients with confirmed lymph node metastases, advanced tumour stage and inadequate adjuvant treatment significantly reduced DFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Our data suggested that SLNB did not compromise the oncological outcome of patients with endometrial cancer compared to LND.