Lymphadenectomy in stage-III serous cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary

[Surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer: Article drafted from the French Guidelines in oncology entitled "Initial management of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer" developed by FRANCOGYN, CNGOF, SFOG, GINECO-ARCAGY under the aegis of CNGOF and endorsed by INCa]

Debulking surgery is the key step of advanced stage ovarian cancer treatment with chemotherapy. The quality of surgical resection is the main prognosis factor, thus a complete resection must be achieved (grade A) in an expert center (grade B). Surgery for stage IV is possible and has a benefit in case of complete peritoneal resection (LoE3). Pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomies are recommended in case of clinical or radiological suspicious lymph nodes (grade B). In absence of clinical or radiological suspicious lymph nodes and in case of complete peritoneal resection during initial debulking surgery, lymphadenectomy can be omitted because it won't change nor medical treatment nor overall survival (grade B). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be proposed in case of: impossibility to perform initial complete surgical resection (grade B) ; alteration of general state or co-morbidities or elderly patient (in order to decrease morbidity and increase quality of life) (grade B); stage IV with multiple intra-hepatic or pulmonary metastasis or important ascites with miliary (grade B). In case of stage III or IV ovarian cancer diagnosed on a biopsy during prior laparotomy, a neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery should be preferred (gradeC). In case of palliative surgery or peroperative impossibility to perform a complete resection, no data regarding the type of surgery to perform influencing survival or quality of life is available. Peritoneal carcinosis description before resection and residual disease at the end of the surgery should be reported (size, location and reason of non-extirpability) (grade B). A score of peritoneal carcinosis such as Peritoneal Carcinosis Index (PCI) should be used in order to objectively evaluate the tumoral burden (gradeC). A standardized operative report is recommended (gradeC).

Association of lymphadenectomy and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

Lymph node metastasis has a significant contribution to the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer but the role of lymph node dissection in treatment is not clear. In this study, we aimed to retrospectively determine the effect of the number and localization of lymph nodes removed and the number of metastatic lymph nodes on survival.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the data of 378 patients (210 patients with lymph node dissection and 168 patients with no dissection) who underwent primary surgery between 2004 and 2014 in various centers with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis and followed up in our medical oncology clinic. Demographic and histopathologic features, stage, Ca 125 levels, chemotherapy responses of these patients were examined and survival analyzes were performed.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 52 years (range 16-89) and median follow-up duration was 39 months (range 1-146). During the analysis, 156 patients (41%) died and 222 patients (59%) were alive. Patients who underwent lymphadenectomy had significantly improved progression free survival (PFS) (18 vs 31 months, P < 0.05) and overall survival (OS) (57 vs 92 months, P < 0.05). OS was longer in patients with >10 lymph nodes removed compared to patients with 1-10 lymph nodes removed (P = 0.005). Survival was found to be longer in patients with pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection compared to patients with only pelvic lymph node dissection (P < 0.05). Patients in stage I-II had no difference in PFS and OS. Patients in stage III-IV had no difference in PFS but there was a significant difference in OS (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

It may be a therapeutic effect of lymphadenectomy in advanced stage ovarian cancer. The number of lymph nodes removed and the removal of the paraaortic lymph nodes may also contribute to the treatment.

The effect of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of lymphadenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched on 15 November 2015 using the terms 'lymphadenectomy', 'ovarian cancer', 'dissection', 'para-aortic', 'pelvic' and survival. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing the outcomes of surgery with or without lymphadenectomy were included. Outcomes were 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Of the 556 studies identified, 3 randomized controlled trials and 11 retrospective studies were included. Lymphadenectomy was associated with greater 5-year overall survival than no lymphadenectomy (pooled odds ratio = 1.58, 95% confidence interval: 1.41-1.77, p < 0.001). There was no difference in progression-free survival between the groups (pooled overall survival = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-3.21, p = 0.168). Lymphadenectomy was associated with greater progression-free survival in randomized clinical trials (pooled overall survival = 1.57, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.21, p = 0.010), but not in retrospective studies. Lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate (pooled overall survival = 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.85, p = 0.011). Lymphadenectomy was associated with greater 5-year overall survival in patients with both early and advanced stage cancer, but was associated with greater progression-free survival and lower recurrence rate only in patients with advanced stage cancer.

CONCLUSION

Lymphadenectomy is associated with greater 5-year overall survival in patients with early and advanced stage ovarian cancer, but an effect on progression-free survival and recurrence rate was only found in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer.

Surgical treatment of ovarian cancer in different hospital categories – A prospective nation-wide study in Finland

This prospective nation-wide study was performed to evaluate the effect of hospital category and subspeciality training on surgical treatment of ovarian cancer. Data were obtained from a questionnaire filled in by the operating unit, and from the surgical and histopathology reports. The survey included 307 patients. Half of them were operated in the university hospitals where gynaecologic oncologists performed 72% of the operations. This was the case in only 4% and 19% in the central and district hospitals, respectively. In university hospitals, pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 88%, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in 73%, of the patients with stage I disease. The corresponding figures ranged from 11% to 21% in central and district hospitals. For stage III patients operated by gynaecologic oncologists, the estimated odds ratio for no macroscopic tumour was 3.0 times higher (95% CI 1.2-7.5) than for those operated by general gynaecologists. These results favour centralisation of surgical treatment of ovarian cancer.

Can we rely on the size of the lymph node in determining nodal metastasis in ovarian carcinoma?

This study endeavored to determine whether lymph node size is a reliable indicator in determining lymph node metastasis in common epithelial ovarian cancer. We reviewed pathologic sections of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes removed from 104 ovarian carcinoma patients who underwent either primary surgical staging or secondary surgery from January 1994 to July 2001. All sections of each individual node were measured in two dimensions. The different sizes of nodes were studied statistically to determine the optimal sensitivity and specificity in predicting cancer metastasis. A nodal size of 10 mm was a specific point of interest. Of 2069 total nodes obtained, 110 nodes (5.3%) had metastatic cancer. More than half (55.4%) of these positive nodes had a nodal long axis of 10 mm and less. The sensitivity and specificity of nodal size at 10 mm were 44.5% and 81.1%, respectively. We conclude that lymph node size is not a good indicator in determining epithelial ovarian cancer metastasis. Mere sampling of only the enlarged nodes does not reflect the true positive incidence of nodal metastasis. To avoid inaccurate staging and improper management, complete lymph node dissection is proposed as part of surgical staging for ovarian cancer.

The clinical significance of occult macroscopically positive retroperitoneal nodes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine the time during primary cytoreduction when retroperitoneal lymph nodes that are involved with macroscopic disease are recognized to be involved with tumor, the dimensions of intranodal disease present, and the possible clinical significance of macroscopically positive nodes that are recognized at different phases of the operation.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer underwent a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection during primary cytoreductive surgery. The phase of the operation in which nodes were recognized to be macroscopically involved with tumor was noted. Nodes were classified to be positive by palpation if recognized to be macroscopically involved by transperitoneal palpation, positive by inspection if recognized to be macroscopically involved by palpation after opening the retroperitoneal area, and positive by dissection if recognized to be macroscopically involved anytime after starting the actual process of lymph node dissection. The largest dimension of the intranodal disease in macroscopically positive nodes was measured. Log rank analysis determined whether nodal status or the time at which the nodes were recognized to be macroscopically positive influenced the probability of survival.

RESULTS

Of the 100 patients, 66 had positive lymph nodes. Five were microscopically positive and 61 were macroscopically positive, of which 19 (31.1%) were positive by palpation, 16 (26.2%) were positive by inspection, 26 (42.6%) were positive by dissection. Of the 39 patients with negative and microscopically positive nodes 15 (38.5%) were clinically suspicious. Compared with patients with negative and microscopically positive lymph nodes, survival was not significantly different for patients who required excision of macroscopically positive nodal tissue. Survival was not influenced by the specific phase of surgery in which macroscopically positive nodes were recognized.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant percentage of patients had retroperitoneal nodes recognized to be involved with macroscopic disease only after a lymph node dissection was in progress. The decision not to perform a lymph node dissection for optimally and completely cytoreduced patients may result in unrecognized macroscopic residual disease that is larger than what would otherwise be documented.