Lymph node ratio in inguinal lymphadenectomy for squamous cell vulvar cancer: Results from the AGO-CaRE-1 study.


Journal

Gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 1095-6859
Titre abrégé: Gynecol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0365304

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2019
Historique:
received: 28 11 2018
revised: 03 02 2019
accepted: 05 02 2019
pubmed: 15 2 2019
medline: 6 7 2019
entrez: 15 2 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Lymph node ratio (LNR) can predict treatment outcome and prognosis in patients with solid tumors. Aim of the present analysis was to confirm the concept of using LNR for assessing outcome in patients with vulvar cancer after surgery with inguinal lymphadenectomy in a large multicenter project. The AGO-CaRE-1 study multicenter database was used for analysis. LNR was defined as ratio of number of positive lymph nodes (LN) to the number of resected. Previously established LNR risk groups were used to stratify patients. LNR was investigated with respect to clinical parameters. Univariate and multivariable survival analyses were performed to assess the value of LNR in order to predict overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival. In total, 1047 patients treated with surgery including inguinal lymph node resection for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva were identified from the database. Of these, 370 (35.3%) were found to have positive inguinal LN. In total, 677 (64.7%) had a LNR of 0% (N0), 255 (24.4%) a LNR of >0% < 20%, and 115 (11%) a LNR of ≥20%. Patients with higher LNR were found to have larger tumor size (P < .001), advanced tumor stage (P < .001), high tumor grade (P < .001), and deep stromal invasion (P < .001), more frequently. Three-year PFS rates were 75.7%, 44.2%, and 23.1% and three-year OS rates were 89.7%, 65.4%, and 41.9%, in patients with LNRs 0%, >0% < 20%, and ≥20%, respectively (P < .001, P < .001). On multivariable analyses LNR (HR 7.75, 95%-CI 4.01-14.98, P < .001), FIGO stage (HR 1.41, 95%-CI 1.18-1.69, P < .001), and patient's performance status (HR 1.59, 95%-CI 1.39-1.82, P < .001), were associated with PFS. In addition, LNR (HR 12.74, 95%-CI 5.64-28.78, P < .001), and performance status (HR 1.72, 95%-CI 1.44-2.07, P < .001) were also the only two parameters independently associated with OS. LNR generally showed stronger correlation than number of affected LN when comparing the two different multivariable models. In women with vulvar cancer LNR appears to be a consistent, independent prognostic parameter for both PFS and OS and allows patient stratification into three distinct risk groups. In survival analyses, LNR outperformed nodal status and number of positive nodes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30760408
pii: S0090-8258(19)30112-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.02.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Validation Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

286-291

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Stephan Polterauer (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Karl Landsteiner Institute for General Gynecology and Experimental Gynecologic Oncology, Austria. Electronic address: Stephan.polterauer@meduniwien.ac.at.

Richard Schwameis (R)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Christoph Grimm (C)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Peter Hillemanns (P)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Hannover, Germany.

Julia Jückstock (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Felix Hilpert (F)

Onkologisches Therapiezentrum am Krankenhaus Jerusalem, Hamburg, Germany.

Nikolaus de Gregorio (N)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Annette Hasenburg (A)

Department of Gynecology, Johannes Gutenberg University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany.

Jalid Sehouli (J)

Department of Gynecology, European Competence Center for Ovarian Cancer, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.

Sophie Theresa Fürst (ST)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Hannover, Germany.

Hans Georg Strauß (HG)

Department of Gynecology, University of Halle, Halle, Germany; Department of Gynecology, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Klaus Baumann (K)

Department of Gynecology, Obstetris University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Falk Thiel (F)

Department of Gynecology, Alb Fils Kliniken, Klinik am Eichert, Goeppingen, Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany.

Alexander Mustea (A)

Department of Gynecology, University Medicine of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

Philipp Harter (P)

Department of Gynecology, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Essen, Germany.

Pauline Wimberger (P)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universität Dresden, TU Dresden, Dresden, Department of Gynecology and Obstretrics, University Hospital Essen, Germany.

Heinz Kölbl (H)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Alexander Reinthaller (A)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Karl Landsteiner Institute for General Gynecology and Experimental Gynecologic Oncology, Austria.

Linn Woelber (L)

Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

Sven Mahner (S)

Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH