Sanjeev Kumar1, Karl C Podratz2, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez2, Sean C Dowdy2, Amy L Weaver3, Michaela E McGree3, William A Cliby2, Gary L Keeney4, Gillian Thomas5, Andrea Mariani6. 1. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: Kumar.sanjeev@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada. 6. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: mariani.andrea@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively define the prevalence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in at risk endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: From 2004 to 2008, frozen section based Mayo Criteria prospectively identified patients "not at-risk" of LNM (30% EC population; grade I/II, <50% myometrial invasion and tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm) where lymphadenectomy was not recommended. The remaining 70% EC cohort was considered "at-risk" of LNM; where a systematic pelvic and infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy was recommended. Patients were prospectively followed. The area between renal vein and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) was labeled as high paraaortic area. For calculating the prevalence of LNM in high paraaortic area, the denominator was the population with known anatomic location of nodal tissue in relation to the IMA. RESULTS: Of the 742 patients, 514 were at risk; of which 89% underwent recommended lymphadenectomy. A mean (± standard deviation) of 36 (± 14) pelvic and 18 (± 9) paraaortic nodes were harvested. The prevalence of pelvic and paraaortic LNM was 17% and 12%, respectively. In presence of pelvic LNM, 51% had paraaortic LNM. In absence of pelvic LNM, 3% had paraaortic LNM; of which 67% was located exclusively in high paraaortic area. Among patients with paraaortic LNM, 88% had high paraaortic LNM; and 35% had only high paraaortic LNM. The cases of paraaortic LNM with negative pelvic nodes seemed to cluster in moderate to high grade endometrioid EC with ≥ 50% myometrial invasion. CONCLUSION: We present reference data for the prevalence of LNM in at-risk EC patients to guide lymphadenectomy decisions for clinical and research purposes.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively define the prevalence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in at risk endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: From 2004 to 2008, frozen section based Mayo Criteria prospectively identified patients "not at-risk" of LNM (30% EC population; grade I/II, <50% myometrial invasion and tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm) where lymphadenectomy was not recommended. The remaining 70% EC cohort was considered "at-risk" of LNM; where a systematic pelvic and infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy was recommended. Patients were prospectively followed. The area between renal vein and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) was labeled as high paraaortic area. For calculating the prevalence of LNM in high paraaortic area, the denominator was the population with known anatomic location of nodal tissue in relation to the IMA. RESULTS: Of the 742 patients, 514 were at risk; of which 89% underwent recommended lymphadenectomy. A mean (± standard deviation) of 36 (± 14) pelvic and 18 (± 9) paraaortic nodes were harvested. The prevalence of pelvic and paraaortic LNM was 17% and 12%, respectively. In presence of pelvic LNM, 51% had paraaortic LNM. In absence of pelvic LNM, 3% had paraaortic LNM; of which 67% was located exclusively in high paraaortic area. Among patients with paraaortic LNM, 88% had high paraaortic LNM; and 35% had only high paraaortic LNM. The cases of paraaortic LNM with negative pelvic nodes seemed to cluster in moderate to high grade endometrioid EC with ≥ 50% myometrial invasion. CONCLUSION: We present reference data for the prevalence of LNM in at-risk EC patients to guide lymphadenectomy decisions for clinical and research purposes.
Authors: S C Dowdy; B J Borah; J N Bakkum-Gamez; A L Weaver; M E McGree; L R Haas; G L Keeney; A Mariani; K C Podratz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sanjeev Kumar; Fabiola Medeiros; Sean C Dowdy; Gary L Keeney; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Karl C Podratz; William A Cliby; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sean C Dowdy; Bijan J Borah; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Sanjeev Kumar; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Lindsey R Haas; William A Cliby; Karl C Podratz Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Andrea Mariani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Bobbie S Gostout; Monica B Jones; Timothy O Wilson; Karl C Podratz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Maria Luisa Gasparri; Donatella Caserta; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Andrea Papadia; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Francesco Multinu; Jvan Casarin; Serena Cappuccio; Gary L Keeney; Gretchen E Glaser; William A Cliby; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Stefano Angioni; Gavino Faa; Mario M Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Floor J Backes; John F Boggess; Walter H Gotlieb; W Jeffrey Lowery; Emma C Rossi; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca J Wolsky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Jen Ducie; Narisha Ali; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; Giorgio Bogani; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 5.482