PURPOSE: Prognostic impact of nodal status or lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer is still unclear. Known best prognostic impact in advanced ovarian cancer has the residual tumor mass. The aim of this retrospective study is to examine the importance of nodal status in correlation with residual tumor mass. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven consecutive patients with primary stage III ovarian cancer underwent surgery between 01/2000 and 06/2007 at the Department of gynecology and obstetrics, University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany. All patients got stage-related surgery and platin-based chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 53.5 months, and all patients were included in the study. RESULTS: Resection status and nodal status are significant prognostic factors in our study (P < 0.001). In FIGO III, patients without residual tumor (R0) had significant best OS and PFS independent to node status (N0/N+; P = 0.002) compared to patients with residual tumor. In contrast, node status had significant positive impact on PFS in patients without residual tumor and node negativity. With the increase in residual tumor, the influence of lymphnode metastases on prognosis is decreasing. CONCLUSION: Main intention of primary surgery is R0 resection with best prognosis in advanced stages. A systematic lymphadenectomy in cases with R0 resection or residual tumor <1 cm seems to be reasonable with positive impact on prognosis. Node status has impact on prognosis in patients with negative node after R0 resection with best PFS in FIGO III. Further prospective studies had to show whether systematic lymphadenectomy in suboptimally tumor-reduced patients can improve prognosis.
PURPOSE: Prognostic impact of nodal status or lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer is still unclear. Known best prognostic impact in advanced ovarian cancer has the residual tumor mass. The aim of this retrospective study is to examine the importance of nodal status in correlation with residual tumor mass. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven consecutive patients with primary stage III ovarian cancer underwent surgery between 01/2000 and 06/2007 at the Department of gynecology and obstetrics, University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany. All patients got stage-related surgery and platin-based chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 53.5 months, and all patients were included in the study. RESULTS: Resection status and nodal status are significant prognostic factors in our study (P < 0.001). In FIGO III, patients without residual tumor (R0) had significant best OS and PFS independent to node status (N0/N+; P = 0.002) compared to patients with residual tumor. In contrast, node status had significant positive impact on PFS in patients without residual tumor and node negativity. With the increase in residual tumor, the influence of lymphnode metastases on prognosis is decreasing. CONCLUSION: Main intention of primary surgery is R0 resection with best prognosis in advanced stages. A systematic lymphadenectomy in cases with R0 resection or residual tumor <1 cm seems to be reasonable with positive impact on prognosis. Node status has impact on prognosis in patients with negative node after R0 resection with best PFS in FIGO III. Further prospective studies had to show whether systematic lymphadenectomy in suboptimally tumor-reduced patients can improve prognosis.
Authors: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pauline Wimberger; Nils Lehmann; Rainer Kimmig; Alexander Burges; Werner Meier; Andreas Du Bois Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: J K Chan; R Urban; J M Hu; J Y Shin; A Husain; N N Teng; J S Berek; K Osann; D S Kapp Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Arthur Cho; Jae-Hoon Lee; Mijin Yun; Jong Doo Lee; Young Tae Kim; Won Jun Kang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Wan Kyu Eo; Hye Jung Chang; Sang Hoon Kwon; Suk Bong Koh; Young Ok Kim; Yong Il Ji; Hong-Bae Kim; Ji Young Lee; Dong Soo Suh; Ki Hyung Kim; Ik Jin Chang; Heung Yeol Kim; Suk Choo Chang Journal: J Cancer Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 4.207