ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pathological tumor-free margin distance on survival in SCC patients treated with surgery alone. METHODS: This retrospective study included 128 patients with node-negative disease that received no adjuvant treatment. Disease-free and overall survival were analyzed according to pathological tumor-free margin distance. RESULTS: The patients were subclassified into three resection margin category groups: "1 to 3 mm" (n = 42), ">3 to 8 mm" (n = 47) or ">8 mm" (n = 39). Thirty-nine of the 128 patients (30.5%) developed recurrent disease. Median follow-up for disease-free survival (DFS) was 6.49 years (95% CI 5.16 years; 7.62 years), and median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 6.29 years (95% CI 5.45 years; 7.33 years). The 5-year DFS rate was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.79), and the 5-year OS rate was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.87). Regarding the survival outcome, there were no independent significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.300) or overall survival (p = 1.000) among patients within the three tumor-free resection margin categories. Multivariate analyses did not show any statistically significant association between tumor-free resection margin distance and recurrent disease or death, either when analyzed as a categorical variable or when analyzed as a continuous variable. CONCLUSION: The present study did not show a significant impact of pathological tumor-free resection margin distance following surgery in patients with node-negative SCC of the vulva (that did not receive adjuvant treatment) on disease-free and overall survival.
ABSTRACT
The need for pelvic treatment in patients with node-positive vulvar cancer (VSCC) and the value of pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAE) as a staging procedure to plan adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is controversial. In this retrospective, multicenter analysis, 306 patients with primary node-positive VSCC treated at 33 gynecologic oncology centers in Germany between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed. All patients received surgical staging of the groins; nodal status was as follows: 23.9% (73/306) pN1a, 23.5% (72/306) pN1b, 20.4% (62/306) pN2a/b, and 31.9% (97/306) pN2c/pN3. A total of 35.6% (109/306) received pelvic LAE; pelvic nodal involvement was observed in 18.5%. None of the patients with nodal status pN1a or pN1b and pelvic LAE showed pelvic nodal involvement. Taking only patients with nodal status ≥pN2a into account, the rate of pelvic involvement was 25%. In total, adjuvant RT was applied in 64.4% (197/306). Only half of the pelvic node-positive (N+) patients received adjuvant RT to the pelvis (50%, 10/20 patients); 41.9% (122/291 patients) experienced recurrent disease or died. In patients with histologically-confirmed pelvic metastases after LAE, distant recurrences were most frequently observed (7/20 recurrences). Conclusions: A relevant risk regarding pelvic nodal involvement was observed from nodal status pN2a and higher. Our data support the omission of pelvic treatment in patients with nodal status pN1a and pN1b.
