Therapeutic Benefit of Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Node-Negative Uterine-Confined Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma: Omission of Adjuvant Therapy

Simple Summary

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological tract malignancy in developed countries. Extrauterine disease, in particular lymph node metastasis, is an important prognostic factor. Nevertheless, pelvic lymphadenectomy is not considered to have a therapeutic benefit, as it did not improve survival in randomized studies. However, lymphadenectomy may have a therapeutic benefit if adjuvant therapy can be omitted without decreasing oncological outcomes, as the long-term quality of life is maintained by avoiding morbidities associated with adjuvant therapy. In intermediate- and high-risk endometrioid endometrial carcinomas, adjuvant therapy may be safely omitted without decreasing long-term survival by open surgery including systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy when patients are node-negative. Systematic lymphadenectomy may remove undetectable low-volume lymph node metastasis in both pelvic and para-aortic regions, and open surgery may reduce vaginal recurrence even without vaginal brachytherapy. However, lymphadenectomy may not improve survival in elderly patients and patients with p53-mutant tumors.

Abstract

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological tract malignancy in developed countries, and its incidence has been increasing globally with rising obesity rates and longer life expectancy. In endometrial cancer, extrauterine disease, in particular lymph node metastasis, is an important prognostic factor. Nevertheless, pelvic lymphadenectomy is not considered to have a therapeutic benefit, as it did not improve survival in randomized studies. However, lymphadenectomy may have a therapeutic benefit if adjuvant therapy can be omitted without decreasing oncological outcomes, as the long-term quality of life is maintained by avoiding morbidities associated with adjuvant therapy. In intermediate- and high-risk endometrioid endometrial carcinomas, adjuvant therapy may be safely omitted without decreasing long-term survival by open surgery including systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy when patients are node-negative. Systematic lymphadenectomy may remove undetectable low-volume lymph node metastasis in both pelvic and para-aortic regions, and open surgery may reduce vaginal recurrence even without vaginal brachytherapy. However, lymphadenectomy may not improve survival in elderly patients and patients with p53-mutant tumors. In this review, I discuss the characteristics of lymph node metastasis, the methods of lymph node assessment, and the therapeutic benefits of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrioid endometrial carcinoma.

Utility of the relative apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative assessment of low risk endometrial carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Lymphadenectomy is not recommended for low risk stage I endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients. This study was to investigate the predictive value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in predicting patients with low risk EC, and to identify an optimum ADC measurement for preoperative assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-one patients with stage I EC who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at 1.5T were included and divided into low group and intermediate-high risk group based on the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO classification. Clinical indexes, conventional MRI parameters, minimum ADC values (minADC), mean ADC values (meanADC) and relative ADC values (rADC) were compared between those two groups. rADC was calculated using the equation ADC (cancer)/ADC (reference) with the obturator internus muscle as reference. The optimal ADC measurement and cut-off ADC value for low risk EC were calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

The low risk group had significantly higher meanADC, minADC, and rADC values than did the intermediate-high risk group (1.095 vs. 0.902 × 10^-3 mm²/s, 0.755 vs. 0.657 × 10^-3 mm²/s, 0.754 vs. 0.603, respectively). In assessments of low risk EC patients, the area under the curve (AUC) values for meanADC, minADC, and rADC were 0.840 (95%CI, 0.749,0.931), 0.681 (95% CI: 0.561,0.800), and 0.876(95% CI: 0.798,0.954), respectively. The optimal cut-off rADC value for prediction was 0.669, the maximum Youden index, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were 0.683, 81.8%, 86.5%, and 84.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

rADC is superior to minADC and meanADC for predicting patients with low risk EC, and could potentially aid to the surgical management of these patients in avoiding unnecessary lymphadenectomy.

The impact of lymphadenectomy on survival endpoints in women with early stage uterine endometrioid carcinoma: A matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

The role of pelvic lymphadenectomy (LA) in women with stage I endometrial carcinoma (EC) is controversial. The objective of this study is to investigate the prognostic impact of LA on survival endpoints in matched cohorts of women with stage I EC solely of endometrioid histology. Survival endpoints included recurrence-free (RFS), disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with FIGO stage I EC who underwent hysterectomy with LA as part of their surgical staging between 1/1990 and 6/2015 were matched to a similar group that underwent hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy (NLA), based on stage, grade and adjuvant management. Univariate and multivariate modeling with Cox regression analysis was carried out for predictors of survival endpoints.

RESULTS

870 women constituted the study cohort (435 in each group). Median number of dissected lymph node in the LA group was 9 (range, 5-75). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in regards to 5-year OS (87.2% for LA vs. 91.7% for NLA) (p=0.36), DSS 97.7% vs. 98% (p=0.54) and RFS (93.7% vs. 90% (p=0.08), respectively. Lymphadenectomy was not a predictor of any of the studied survival endpoints. On multivariate analysis for the entire cohort, older age, deep myometrial invasion and higher tumor grade were predictors of worse RFS. For DSS, higher tumor grade, lower uterine segment (LUS) involvement and FIGO stage IB were significant predictors of worse outcome. For OS, older age and LUS involvement were the only two independent predictors for shorter OS.

CONCLUSIONS

After matching for FIGO stage, grade and adjuvant management, it appears that lymphadenectomy in women with stage I EC does not impact survival endpoints.

Therapeutic role of systematic lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: A systematic review

The purpose of the current review was to examine whether systematic lymphadenectomy is safe and effective for treating early-stage endometrial cancer. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched during April 2014 to identify studies comparing the use of systematic lymphadenectomy and no systematic lymphadenectomy in parallel for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. A total of 13 eligible studies involving 51,155 patients were included in this review. The median overall survival (OS) rate at 5 years following lymphadenectomy was 90% (range, 73.1-98.3%) for patients undergoing the systematic procedure and 88.2% (range, 68-98.4%) for patients not undergoing the systematic procedure. For the two types of lymphadenectomy, OS has tended to improve over the last 20 years. The combined rate of disease-free and progression-free survival was higher in patients who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy, and the recurrence rate was lower. In particular, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with markedly higher OS than the non-systematic procedure for patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer when ≥11 lymph nodes were removed. Systematic lymphadenectomy demonstrates clinical benefit in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer and should thus be a standard treatment option. In conclusion, systematic lymphadenectomy leads to higher OS than no systematic lymphadenectomy in intermediate- and high-risk patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, particularly when the procedure removes ≥11 lymph nodes.

Prospective assessment of survival, morbidity, and cost associated with lymphadenectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

Since 1999, patients with low risk endometrial cancer (EC) as defined by the Mayo criteria have preferably not undergone lymphadenectomy (LND) at our institution. Here we prospectively assess survival, sites of recurrence, morbidity, and cost in this low risk cohort.

METHODS

Cause-specific survival (CSS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Complications were graded per the Accordion Classification. Thirty-day cost analyses were expressed in 2010 Medicare dollars.

RESULTS

Among 1393 consecutive surgically managed cases, 385 (27.6%) met inclusion criteria, accounting for 34.1% of type I EC. There were 80 LND and 305 non-LND cases. Complications in the first 30 days were significantly more common in the LND cohort (37.5% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001). The prevalence of lymph node metastasis was 0.3% (1/385). Over a median follow-up of 5.4 years only 5 of 31 deaths were due to disease. The 5-year CSS in LND and non-LND cases was 97.3% and 99.0%, respectively (P=0.32). None of the 11 total recurrences occurred in the pelvic or para-aortic nodal areas. Median 30-day cost of care was $15,678 for LND cases compared to $11,028 for non-LND cases (P<0.001). The estimated cost per up-staged low-risk case was $327,866 to $439,990, adding an additional $1,418,189 if all 305 non-LND cases had undergone LND.

CONCLUSION

Lymphadenectomy dramatically increases morbidity and cost of care without discernible benefits in low-risk EC as defined by the Mayo criteria. In these low-risk patients, hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy alone is appropriate surgical management and should be standard of care.