OBJECTIVES: Limited information exist about the frequency of micrometastases, their topographic distribution and prognostic impact in patients with cervical carcinoma (CX). METHODS: Lymph nodes of patients with surgically treated CX, FIGO IB to IIB, with pelvic lymph node involvement, were re-examined regarding the size of metastatic deposits, their topographic distribution within the pelvis. Lymph node status (pN0 vs. pN1mic=metastasis<0.2 cm vs. pN1=metastasis>0.2 cm) was correlated to recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 31.4% of all patients (281/894) represented pelvic lymph node involvement. 22.2.% of the node positive ones showed micrometastases (pN1mic). Most commonly, obturator and internal nodes were affected by pN1mic, without any side differences. Patients with macrometastases (pN1) and micrometastases (pN1mic) represented significant reduced RFS-rate at 5-years (62% [95% CI: 54.2 to 69.8] for pN1 and 68.9% [95% CI: 55.5 to 82.4] for pN1mic) when compared to patients without metastatic disease (91.4% [95% CI: 89.0 to 93.8]; p<0.001) The 5-years OS-rate was decreased in patients with metastatic disease (pN0: 86.6% [95% CI: 83.7 to 89.5], pN1mic: 63.8% [95% CI: 50.9 to 76.7], pN1: 48.2% [95% CI: 40.4 to 56.0]; p<0.0001). These differences persisted in detailed analysis within these subgroups. In multivariate analysis, tumor stage, pelvic lymph node involvement and micrometastases were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: A remarkable number of patients with CX show micrometastases within pelvic nodes. Micrometastatic disease represents an independent prognostic factor. So, all patients with pelvic lymph node involvement, including micrometastatic deposits, might be candidates for adjuvant treatment.
OBJECTIVES: Limited information exist about the frequency of micrometastases, their topographic distribution and prognostic impact in patients with cervical carcinoma (CX). METHODS: Lymph nodes of patients with surgically treated CX, FIGO IB to IIB, with pelvic lymph node involvement, were re-examined regarding the size of metastatic deposits, their topographic distribution within the pelvis. Lymph node status (pN0 vs. pN1mic=metastasis<0.2 cm vs. pN1=metastasis>0.2 cm) was correlated to recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 31.4% of all patients (281/894) represented pelvic lymph node involvement. 22.2.% of the node positive ones showed micrometastases (pN1mic). Most commonly, obturator and internal nodes were affected by pN1mic, without any side differences. Patients with macrometastases (pN1) and micrometastases (pN1mic) represented significant reduced RFS-rate at 5-years (62% [95% CI: 54.2 to 69.8] for pN1 and 68.9% [95% CI: 55.5 to 82.4] for pN1mic) when compared to patients without metastatic disease (91.4% [95% CI: 89.0 to 93.8]; p<0.001) The 5-years OS-rate was decreased in patients with metastatic disease (pN0: 86.6% [95% CI: 83.7 to 89.5], pN1mic: 63.8% [95% CI: 50.9 to 76.7], pN1: 48.2% [95% CI: 40.4 to 56.0]; p<0.0001). These differences persisted in detailed analysis within these subgroups. In multivariate analysis, tumor stage, pelvic lymph node involvement and micrometastases were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: A remarkable number of patients with CX show micrometastases within pelvic nodes. Micrometastatic disease represents an independent prognostic factor. So, all patients with pelvic lymph node involvement, including micrometastatic deposits, might be candidates for adjuvant treatment.
Authors: Beatrice Cormier; John P Diaz; Karin Shih; Rachael M Sampson; Yukio Sonoda; Kay J Park; Khaled Alektiar; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Behrouz Zand; Elizabeth D Euscher; Pamela T Soliman; Kathleen M Schmeler; Robert L Coleman; Michael Frumovitz; Anuja Jhingran; Lois M Ramondetta; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John P Diaz; Mary L Gemignani; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Kay J Park; Melissa P Murray; Dennis S Chi; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Merlijn Hutteman; Katja N Gaarenstroom; Alexander A W Peters; J Sven D Mieog; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Peter J K Kuppen; John V Frangioni; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Matthias W Beckmann; Frederik A Stübs; Martin C Koch; Peter Mallmann; Christian Dannecker; Anna Dietl; Anna Sevnina; Franziska Mergel; Laura Lotz; Carolin C Hack; Anne Ehret; Daniel Gantert; Franca Martignoni; Jan-Philipp Cieslik; Jan Menke; Olaf Ortmann; Carmen Stromberger; Karin Oechsle; Beate Hornemann; Friederike Mumm; Christoph Grimm; Alina Sturdza; Edward Wight; Kristina Loessl; Michael Golatta; Volker Hagen; Timm Dauelsberg; Ingo Diel; Karsten Münstedt; Eberhard Merz; Dirk Vordermark; Katja Lindel; Christian Wittekind; Volkmar Küppers; Ralph Lellé; Klaus Neis; Henrik Griesser; Birgit Pöschel; Manfred Steiner; Ulrich Freitag; Tobias Gilster; Alexander Schmittel; Michael Friedrich; Heidemarie Haase; Marion Gebhardt; Ludwig Kiesel; Michael Reinhardt; Michael Kreißl; Marianne Kloke; Lars-Christian Horn; Regina Wiedemann; Simone Marnitz; Anne Letsch; Isabella Zraik; Bernhard Mangold; Jochen Möckel; Céline Alt; Pauline Wimberger; Peter Hillemanns; Kerstin Paradies; Alexander Mustea; Dominik Denschlag; Ulla Henscher; Reina Tholen; Simone Wesselmann; Tanja Fehm Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Lucia M A Crane; George Themelis; Rick G Pleijhuis; Niels J Harlaar; Athanasios Sarantopoulos; Henriette J G Arts; Ate G J van der Zee; Vasilis Ntziachristos; Ntziachristos Vasilis; Gooitzen M van Dam Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: E Chéreau; J-G Feron; M Ballester; C Coutant; C Bezu; R Rouzier; E Touboul; E Daraï Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 7.640