The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the surgical staging of women with intermediate and high-risk endometrial adenocarcinomas

Therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lymph nodal involvement is a prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. The added value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy compared with pelvic nodal evaluation alone remains a matter of debate in the management of patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prognostic value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer.

METHODS

The study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to April 2023. Studies on intermediate- and high-risk patients who underwent pelvic versus pelvic and para-aortic dissection were included in the analysis. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2) were used for quality assessment of the selected articles.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified, encompassing 9415 patients with a median age of 62 years (IQR 56.5-66.5). The majority had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II disease (76%) and endometrioid histology (89%). The 72% of patients who underwent only pelvic nodal evaluation and the 87% who underwent pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy received adjuvant treatment (p=0.44). Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significant improvement in 5-year overall survival (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, p<0.01), translating to a 41% reduction in the risk of overall death. However, no significant differences were observed in the 5-year risk of recurrence (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, p=0.15). Additionally, patients undergoing pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy experienced a 26% increased risk of post-operative complications (RR=1.26, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.53, p=0.03) and prolonged operative times (MD=56.27, 95% CI 15.94 to 96.60, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy appears to confer a prognostic benefit in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. Robust prospective studies are needed to further validate these findings and elucidate the precise role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the optimal management of these patients.

Combined pelvic and para-aortic is superior to only pelvic lymphadenectomy in intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis is a principal prognostic factor for the treatment of endometrial cancer. Added value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy to only pelvic lymphadenectomy for intermediate/high-risk endometrial cancer patients remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of combined pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection (PPALND) compared to only pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on survival outcomes of intermediate and/or high-risk patients.

STUDY DESIGN

The systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses of interventional studies. Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched up to April 20, 2018. Included studies were those comparing high-risk endometrial cancer patients that had performed pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection (PPALND) vs. only pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) apart from standard procedure (total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, TAHBSO). Primary outcomes of the study were overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Overall quality of the evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated as per GRADE guideline using the GRADE pro GD tool.

RESULTS

There were 13 studies identified with 7349 patients included. All studies were retrospective observational as no RCTs or prospective studies adhering to inclusion criteria were retrieved. Combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was associated with 46% decreased risk for death (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.83, I² = 62.1%) and 49% decreased risk for recurrence (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.93). It was also associated with increased 5-year OS rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-0.24, I² = 57.3%) and increased 5-year DFS rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.31, I² = 85.5) compared with only pelvic lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSION

Combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with only pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with intermediate/high-risk endometrial cancers. Further prospective studies should be performed.

Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.84, P < .001, I = 12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69, P < .001, I = 41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21-1.08, P = .077, I = 0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72, P < .001, I = 0). No publication bias was observed among included studies.

CONCLUSION

PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Survival analysis of pelvic lymphadenectomy alone versus combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients exhibiting endometrioid type endometrial cancer

The therapeutic benefit of lymphadenectomy in patients exhibiting endometrial cancer (EC) remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the addition of para-aortic lymphadenectomy to pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) improves survival in patients with endometrioid type EC. A single tertiary-center, retrospective analysis was conducted in a total of 186 patients who were surgically treated with either PLND alone (n=97) or combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND; n=89). Adjuvant treatments were assigned according to the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) risk of recurrence analysis. The primary endpoint of the present study was progression-free survival (PFS). The median follow-up time was 38 months (95% confidence interval, 36.47-42.90) for all patients. No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS), PFS or time to progression (TTP). Kaplan-Meier estimates of three-year OS, PFS and TTP for patients with low or low-intermediate risk were as follows: PLND, 100, 98.7 and 98.7%, respectively; and PPaLND, all 100%. The estimated three-year OS, PFS and TTP for patients with high or high-intermediate risk were as follows: PLND, 92.3, 81.3 and 81.3%; and PPaLND, 90.7, 77.1 and 80.9%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in the three-year OS, PFS and TTP between the lymphadenectomy groups, regardless of the GOG risk of recurrence (PLND, 98.4, 95.3 and 95.3%; and PPaLND, 94.9, 87.1 and 89.4%). Therefore, the combination treatment, PPaLND did not provide any survival advantage over pelvic lymphadenectomy alone.

Prognosis for Endometrial Cancer Patients Treated With Systematic Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Followed by Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

Objective

The purpose of this study was to analyze the prognosis for endometrial cancer patients treated with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PLA and PALA) followed by platinum-based chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods

From 1994 to 2004, in the Cancer Institute Hospital, 502 patients who were surgically treated with systematic PLA and PALA were enrolled in this study. Their prognosis and clinicopathological features were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

One hundred ninety-one (38.0%) patients received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Lymph node (LN) metastasis was observed in 80 (15.9%) patients, pelvic-only LN metastasis in 27 (5.4%), para-aortic-only LN metastasis in 15 (3.0%), and both pelvic and para-aortic LN metastasis in 38 (7.6%). The median number of metastatic LNs was 2 (range, 1–57), 1 (range, 1–4), and 6 (range, 2–50) in patients with pelvic-only, para-aortic-only, and both pelvic and para-aortic LN metastasis, respectively (P< 0.001). Only 2.6% (2/76) of patients with no myometrial invasion had LN metastasis, and no less than 8.9% (22/247) of patients with myometrial invasion (limited to the inner half) had LN metastasis. Five-year overall survival (OS) for LN metastasis–negative and –positive patients was 96.7% and 76% (P< 0.001), respectively. Five-year OS for patients with metastasis in 1 or 2 LNs was 84.8% and was significantly higher than that for patients with metastasis in 3 or more LNs (57.8%;P= 0.011). In patients with LN metastasis, 5-year OS of endometrioid adenocarcinoma and non–endometrioid adenocarcinoma cell types was 90.2% and 56.7% (P= 0.0016), respectively.

Conclusions

Under the settings of thorough PLA and PALA followed by intensive platinum-based chemotherapy for endometrial cancer, metastasis in 1 or 2 LNs seems to have little effect on survival, although para-aortic LNs are involved. This therapeutic strategy could not improve the prognosis of patients with metastasis in 3 or more LNs or patients with non–endometrioid adenocarcinoma cell types along with LN involvement.