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

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.

Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for preoperative identification of high-risk cases in well- or moderately differentiated endometrioid carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for preoperative identification of high-risk cases among women with well-differentiated (G1) or moderately differentiated (G2) endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective observational cohort study comprising a consecutive series of women with a preoperative diagnosis of G1/G2 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. All women underwent transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound examination by a single examiner. According to the examiner's subjective impression, patients were considered high risk if myometrial infiltration was ≥ 50% and/or involvement of the cervix and/or adnexa was suspected. FIGO surgical staging was performed in all cases. According to definitive histological data regarding myometrial infiltration, cervical involvement and adnexal involvement, women were classified as low risk (no myometrial infiltration, no cervical involvement and no adnexal involvement) or high risk (myometrial infiltration ≥ 50% and/or cervical involvement and/or adnexal involvement). Sensitivity, specificity and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios, with 95% CIs, of transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for detecting stage ≥ IB were calculated. Agreement between risk determined by transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound and postoperative definitive histology was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 209 eligible women, 169 were included in the study. Mean (± SD) age of the study cohort was 60.7 ± 10.3 years, with a range of 32-91 years. Sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR- of transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound identifying high-risk cases according to myometrial infiltration, cervical involvement and adnexal involvement were 78.0% (95% CI, 63.7-88.0%), 89.1% (95% CI, 81.7-93.8%), 7.14 (95% CI, 4.19-12.18) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15-0.42), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound may play a significant role in identifying high-risk cases among those with G1/G2 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium according to preoperative biopsy, and could be a useful test in this clinical setting. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.