Can risk groups accurately predict non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in sentinel lymph node-positive endometrial cancer patients? A Turkish Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (TRSGO-SLN-004).


Journal

Journal of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1096-9098
Titre abrégé: J Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0222643

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 07 07 2020
revised: 11 10 2020
accepted: 02 11 2020
pubmed: 2 12 2020
medline: 5 3 2021
entrez: 1 12 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The purpose of this study was to find out the risk factors associated with non-sentinel lymph node metastasis and determine the incidence of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis according to risk groups in sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive endometrial cancer patients. Patients who underwent at least bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy after SLN mapping were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into low, intermediate, high-intermediate, and high-risk groups defined by ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO. Out of 395 eligible patients, 42 patients had SLN metastasis and 16 (38.1%) of them also had non-SLN metastasis. Size of SLN metastasis was the only factor associated with non-SLN metastasis (p = .012) as 13/22 patients with macrometastasis, 2/10 with micrometastasis and 1/10 with isolated tumor cells (ITCs) had non-SLN metastasis. Although all 4 metastases (1.8%) among the low-risk group were limited to SLNs, the non-SLN involvement rate in the high-risk group was 42.9% and all of these were seen in patients with macrometastatic SLNs. Non-SLN metastasis was more frequent in higher-risk groups and the risk of non-SLN metastasis increased with the size of SLN metastasis. Proceeding to complete lymphadenectomy when SLN is metastatic should further be studied as the effect of leaving metastatic non-SLNs in-situ is not known.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to find out the risk factors associated with non-sentinel lymph node metastasis and determine the incidence of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis according to risk groups in sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive endometrial cancer patients.
METHODS METHODS
Patients who underwent at least bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy after SLN mapping were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into low, intermediate, high-intermediate, and high-risk groups defined by ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO.
RESULTS RESULTS
Out of 395 eligible patients, 42 patients had SLN metastasis and 16 (38.1%) of them also had non-SLN metastasis. Size of SLN metastasis was the only factor associated with non-SLN metastasis (p = .012) as 13/22 patients with macrometastasis, 2/10 with micrometastasis and 1/10 with isolated tumor cells (ITCs) had non-SLN metastasis. Although all 4 metastases (1.8%) among the low-risk group were limited to SLNs, the non-SLN involvement rate in the high-risk group was 42.9% and all of these were seen in patients with macrometastatic SLNs.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Non-SLN metastasis was more frequent in higher-risk groups and the risk of non-SLN metastasis increased with the size of SLN metastasis. Proceeding to complete lymphadenectomy when SLN is metastatic should further be studied as the effect of leaving metastatic non-SLNs in-situ is not known.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33259650
doi: 10.1002/jso.26310
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

638-645

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Références

National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: uterine neoplasms, Version 1. 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine_blocks.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2020.
Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):384−392.
Bodurtha Smith AC, Fader AN, Tanner EJ. Sentinel lymph node assessment in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):459−476.
Leitao MM, Jr, Zhou QC, Gomez-Hidalgo NR, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after surgery for endometrial carcinoma: prevalence of lower-extremity lymphedema after sentinel lymph node mapping versus lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(1):147−153.
Bogani G, Murgia F, Ditto A, Raspagliesi F. Sentinel node mapping vs. lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(3):676−683.
Multinu F, Ducie JA, Eriksson AGZ, et al. Role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer with nonbulky lymph node metastasis: comparison of comprehensive surgical staging and sentinel lymph node algorithm. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;155(2):177−185.
Eriksson AGZ, Ducie J, Ali N, et al. Comparison of a sentinel lymph node and a selective lymphadenectomy algorithm in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and limited myometrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(3):394−399.
Schiavone MB, Scelzo C, Straight C, et al. Survival of patients with serous uterine carcinoma undergoing sentinel lymph node mapping. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(7):1965−1971.
Buda A, Restaino S, Di Martino G, et al. The impact of the type of nodal assessment on prognosis in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk ESMO/ESGO/ESTRO Group endometrial cancer. A multicenter Italian study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(10):1562−1567.
Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9721):1165−1172.
Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Kaiser K, Burger E, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Survival advantage of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(5):1051−1060.
Sueoka K, Umayahara K, Abe A, et al. Prognosis for endometrial cancer patients treated with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):81−86.
Touhami O, Trinh XB, Gregoire J, et al. Predictors of non-sentinel lymph node (non-SLN) metastasis in patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(1):41−45.
Kennard JA, Stephens AJ, Ahmad S, et al. Sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) in endometrial cancer: the relationship between primary tumor histology, SLN metastasis size, and non-sentinel node metastasis. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(1):53−59.
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):2−30.
Baiocchi G, Mantoan H, Gonçalves BT, et al. Size of sentinel lymph node metastasis predicts non-sentinel node involvement in endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;27(5):1589−1594.
Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, et al. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):125−136.
Panici PB, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(23):1707−1716.
Cragun JM, Havrilesky LJ, Calingaert B, et al. Retrospective analysis of selective lymphadenectomy in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3668−3675.
Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, et al. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer. 2006;107(8):1823−1830.
Monterossi G, Buca D, Dinoi G, et al. Intra-operative assessment of sentinel lymph node status by one-step nucleic acid amplification assay (OSNA) in early endometrial cancer: a prospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1016−1020.
Renz M, Marjon N, Devereaux K, Raghavan S, Folkins AK, Karam A. Immediate intraoperative sentinel lymph node analysis by frozen section is predictive of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):35−40.
Ballester M, Dubernard G, Bats AS, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of frozen section with imprint cytology for intraoperative examination of sentinel lymph node in early-stage endometrial cancer: results of Senti-Endo study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(11):3515−3521.
Kim CH, Soslow RA, Park KJ, et al. Pathologic ultrastaging improves micrometastasis detection in sentinel lymph nodes during endometrial cancer staging. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(5):964−970.
Ballester M, Dubernard G, Lécuru F, et al. Detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel-node biopsy in early stage endometrial cancer: a prospective multicentre study (SENTI-ENDO). Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):469−476.
Kosťun J, Pešta M, Sláma J, et al. One-step nucleic acid amplification vs ultrastaging in the detection of sentinel lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119(3):361−369.
Plante M, Stanleigh J, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Grégoire J. Isolated tumor cells identified by sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: does adjuvant treatment matter? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2):240−246.
Karalok A, Turan T, Basaran D, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer: overtreatment is the main issue. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(4):748−753.
Holloway RW, Abu-Rustum NR, Backes FJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2):405−415.

Auteurs

Duygu Altin (D)

Ordu University Training and Teaching Hospital, Ordu, Turkey.

Salih Taskin (S)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Nedim Tokgozoglu (N)

Okmeydanı Training and Teaching Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.

Dogan Vatansever (D)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Koç University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

Adbul H Guler (AH)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Selçuk University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Mete Gungor (M)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Acıbadem University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

Tolga Tasci (T)

Bahçeşehir University Medical Park Göztepe Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.

Hasan Turan (H)

İstanbul Training and Teaching Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.

Ilker Kahramanoglu (I)

Diyarbakır Gazi Yaşargil Training and Teaching Hospital, Diyarbakır, Turkey.

Ibrahim Yalcin (I)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Şanlıurfa Training and Teaching Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Turkey.

Cetin Celik (C)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Selçuk University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Faruk Kose (F)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Acıbadem University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

Firat Ortac (F)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Macit Arvas (M)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Istanbul University - Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

Ali Ayhan (A)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Başkent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Cagatay Taskiran (C)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Koç University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

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