Optimizing the Sensitivity of a Pelvic Sentinel Node Algorithm Requires a Hybrid Algorithm Combining Indocyanine Green Based Mapping and the Removal of Non-Mapped Nodes at Defined Anatomic Positions

AIM OF THE STUDY

to investigate the incidence of non-mapped isolated metastatic pelvic lymph nodes at pre-defined anatomical positions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2019 and January 2024, women with uterine-confined endometrial cancer (EC) deemed suitable for robotic surgery and the detection of pelvic sentinel nodes (SLNs) were included. An anatomically based, published algorithm utilizing indocyanine green (ICG) as a tracer was adhered to. In women where no ICG mapping occurred in either the proximal obturator and/or the interiliac positions, defined as "typical positions", those nodes were removed and designated as "SLN anatomy". Ultrastaging and immunohistochemistry were applied to all SLNs. The proportion of isolated metastatic "SLN anatomy" was evaluated.

RESULTS

A non-mapping of either the obturator or interiliac area occurred in 180 of the 620 women (29%). In total, 114 women (18.4%) were node-positive and five of these women (4.3%) had isolated metastases in an "SLN anatomy", suggesting a similar lower sensitivity of the ICG-only algorithm.

CONCLUSION

In an optimized SLN algorithm for endometrial cancer, to avoid undetected nodal metastases in 4.3% of node-positive women, if mapping fails in either the proximal obturator or interiliac area, nodes should be removed from those defined anatomic positions, despite mapping at other positions.

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.

Does para-aortic lymphadenectomy improve survival in pathologically diagnosed early-stage grade 3 endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial cancers? A retrospective cohort study in Korea and Taiwan

PURPOSE

The therapeutic effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in early-stage high-grade endometrial cancer remains controversial. In this study, we investigated whether combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy has a survival benefit compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy alone in patients with pathologically diagnosed FIGO stage I-II grade 3 endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial cancers.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 281 patients with histologically confirmed FIGO stage I-II grade 3 endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial cancers who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy alone or combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in staging surgery at two tertiary centers in Korea and Taiwan. Prognostic factors to predict outcomes in these cases were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 281 patients, 144 underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy alone and 137 underwent combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Within a median follow-up of 45 months, there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, age at diagnosis ≥60 years (HR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.25-3.87, p = 0.006) and positive lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) (HR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.60-4.85, p < 0.001) were associated with worse RFS, and only non-endometrioid histology was associated with worse OS (HR = 3.18, 95% CI 1.42-7.12, p = 0.005). In further subgroup analysis, beneficial effects of combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy on RFS and OS were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy could not improve survival compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy alone in patients with FIGO stage I-II grade 3 endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial cancers. Therefore, para-aortic lymphadenectomy may be omitted for these cases.

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.

Evaluation of Intraoperative Assessments in the Management of Endometrial Carcinoma: A Retrospective Quality Assurance Review

Intraoperative assessment (IA) of uteri is often used to help determine whether to perform lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial carcinoma. We sought to perform a quality assurance review of the practice of IA at our institution. In a 1-yr period, 107 hysterectomies had an IA performed. Grade of neoplasm in preoperative endometrial biopsy, neoplasm size, depth of myometrial invasion at IA, operative management, and final histologic features were recorded. Operative reports were reviewed to assess the surgeon's interpretation of the IA and the effect on surgical management. The sensitivity and specificity for IA of deep myometrial invasion (>50% myometrial thickness) compared with final histology was 76.9% and 91.1%. The positive predictive value was 71.4%, negative predictive value 93.2% and accuracy 88%. Neoplasm size was provided in 47% of cases. In 10% of patients lymphadenectomy was performed despite low-risk features. IA results were included in the operative report in 87% of cases. There were differences in 8.4% of cases between the IA diagnosis and the surgeon's operative report. IA of deep myometrial invasion is reliable at our institution. Several metrics for quality improvement have been identified as a result of this retrospective review. These include but are not limited to more reliable reporting of neoplasm size, documentation, and communication with gynecologic oncologists.

Role of lymphadenectomy in intermediate-risk endometrial cancer: a matched-pair study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of lymph node dissection (LND) on morbidity, survival, and cost for intermediate-risk endometrial cancers (IREC).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort of 720 women with IREC (endometrioid histology with myometrial invasion <50% and grade 3; or myometrial invasion ≥50% and grades 1-2; or cervical involvement and grades 1-2) was carried out. All patients underwent hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A matched pair analysis identified 178 pairs (178 with LND and 178 without it) equal in age, body mass index, co-morbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score, myometrial invasion, and surgical approach. Demographic data, pathology results, perioperative morbidity, and survival were abstracted from medical records. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Cost analysis was carried out between both groups.

RESULTS

Both study groups were homogeneous in demographic data and pathologic results. The mean follow-up in patients free of disease was 61.7 months (range, 12.0-275.5). DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.79-2.28) and OS (HR=0.72; 95% CI=0.42-1.23) were similar in both groups, independently of nodes count. In LND group, positive nodes were found in 10 cases (5.6%). Operating time and late postoperative complications were higher in LND group (p<0.05). Infection rate was significantly higher in no-LND group (p=0.035). There were no statistical differences between both groups regarding operative morbidity and hospital stay. The global cost was similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Systematic LND in IREC has no benefit on survival, although it does not show an increase in perioperative morbidity or global cost.

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.

Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010 and updated in Issue 9, 2015. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who before surgery are thought to have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short-term and long-term sequelae. Therefore, it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to June 2009 for the original review, updated the search to June 2015 for the last updated version and further extended the search to March 2017 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

978 unique references were identified via the search strategy. All but 50 were excluded by title and abstract screening. Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, or completeness of outcome reporting.Results of the meta-analysis remained unchanged from the previous versions of this review and indicated no differences in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate-quality evidence).We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.

Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who clinically before surgery have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short-term and long-term sequelae. Therefore it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to June 2009 for the original review and extended the search to June 2015 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding or completeness of outcome reporting.Results of the meta-analysis remain unchanged from the previous version of this review and indicate no differences in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate-quality evidence).We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.