Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson1, Jen Ducie1, Narisha Ali1, Michaela E McGree2, Amy L Weaver2, Giorgio Bogani3, William A Cliby4, Sean C Dowdy4, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez4, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum5, Andrea Mariani4, Mario M Leitao6. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 6. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: leitaom@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicopathologic outcomes between two nodal assessment approaches in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and limited myoinvasion. METHODS: Patients with endometrial cancer at two institutions were reviewed. At one institution, a complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy to the renal veins was performed in select cases deemed at risk for nodal metastasis due to grade 3 cancer and/or primary tumor diameter>2cm (LND cohort). This is a historic approach at this institution. At the other institution, a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm was used per institutional protocol (SLN cohort). Low risk was defined as endometrioid adenocarcinoma with myometrial invasion <50%. Macrometastasis, micrometastasis, and isolated tumor cells were all considered node-positive. RESULTS: Of 1135 cases identified, 642 (57%) were managed with an SLN approach and 493 (43%) with an LND approach. Pelvic nodes (PLNs) were removed in 93% and 58% of patients, respectively (P<0.001); para-aortic nodes (PANs) were removed in 14.5% and 50% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). Median number of PLNs removed was 6 and 34, respectively; median number of PANs removed was 5 and 16, respectively (both P<0.001). Metastasis to PLNs was detected in 5.1% and 2.6% of patients, respectively (P=0.03), and to PANs in 0.8% and 1.0%, respectively (P=0.75). The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 94.9% (95% CI, 92.4-97.5) and 96.8% (95% CI, 95.2-98.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of either strategy for endometrial cancer staging, with no apparent detriment in adhering to the SLN algorithm. The clinical significance of disease detected on ultrastaging and the role of adjuvant therapy is yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicopathologic outcomes between two nodal assessment approaches in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and limited myoinvasion. METHODS:Patients with endometrial cancer at two institutions were reviewed. At one institution, a complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy to the renal veins was performed in select cases deemed at risk for nodal metastasis due to grade 3 cancer and/or primary tumor diameter>2cm (LND cohort). This is a historic approach at this institution. At the other institution, a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm was used per institutional protocol (SLN cohort). Low risk was defined as endometrioid adenocarcinoma with myometrial invasion <50%. Macrometastasis, micrometastasis, and isolated tumor cells were all considered node-positive. RESULTS: Of 1135 cases identified, 642 (57%) were managed with an SLN approach and 493 (43%) with an LND approach. Pelvic nodes (PLNs) were removed in 93% and 58% of patients, respectively (P<0.001); para-aortic nodes (PANs) were removed in 14.5% and 50% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). Median number of PLNs removed was 6 and 34, respectively; median number of PANs removed was 5 and 16, respectively (both P<0.001). Metastasis to PLNs was detected in 5.1% and 2.6% of patients, respectively (P=0.03), and to PANs in 0.8% and 1.0%, respectively (P=0.75). The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 94.9% (95% CI, 92.4-97.5) and 96.8% (95% CI, 95.2-98.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of either strategy for endometrial cancer staging, with no apparent detriment in adhering to the SLN algorithm. The clinical significance of disease detected on ultrastaging and the role of adjuvant therapy is yet to be determined.
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: Joyce N Barlin; Fady Khoury-Collado; Christine H Kim; Mario M Leitao; Dennis S Chi; Yukio Sonoda; Kaled Alektiar; Deborah F DeLair; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: E K Nugent; E A Bishop; C A Mathews; K M Moxley; M Tenney; R S Mannel; J L Walker; K N Moore; L M Landrum; D S McMeekin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Elizabeth L Jewell; Juan Juan Huang; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner; Carol L Brown; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Douglas A Levine; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Giorgio Bogani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Fabio Ghezzi; Diego Rossetti; Andrea Mariani Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.730
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: Rudy S Suidan; Charlotte C Sun; Scott B Cantor; Andrea Mariani; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Karen H Lu; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Andrea Papadia; Ignacio Zapardiel; Beatrice Bussi; Fabio Ghezzi; Marcello Ceccaroni; Elena De Ponti; Federica Elisei; Sara Imboden; Begoña Diaz de la Noval; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Giampaolo Di Martino; Javier De Santiago; Michael Mueller; Francesca Vecchione; Federica Dell'Orto; Alessandro Buda Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.553
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: Jennifer J Mueller; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Kenya Braxton; Kaled M Alektiar; Mario M Leitao; Carol Aghajanian; Lora H Ellenson; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.482