Maria B Schiavone1, Chiara Scelzo1, Celeste Straight1, Qin Zhou2, Kaled M Alektiar3, Vicky Makker4,5, Robert A Soslow6,7, Alexia Iasonos2, Mario M Leitao1,8, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum9,10. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 9. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. abu-rusn@mskcc.org. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. abu-rusn@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with serous uterine carcinoma undergoing sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping compared with patients undergoing standard lymphadenectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all uterine cancer patients treated at our institution from 2005 to 2015. Patients were separated into two cohorts: those who underwent SLN mapping at the time of staging (SLN) and those who underwent routine lymphadenectomy (the non-SLN group). SLN mapping was performed according to institutional protocol, incorporating a surgical algorithm and pathologic ultrastaging. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were identified-153 SLN mappings and 95 routine lymphadenectomies (pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph node dissection). No significant difference in age or body mass index was observed between the groups (p = 0.08 and p = 0.9, respectively). Minimally invasive surgery was utilized in 117/153 (77%) SLN patients and 30/95 (32%) non-SLN patients (p = <0.001). Stage distribution for the SLN and non-SLN cohorts demonstrated 106/153 (69%) and 59/95 (62%) patients with stage I/II disease, respectively, and 47/153 (31%) and 36/95 (38%) patients with stage III/IV disease, respectively (p = 0.3). The median number of nodes removed was 12 (range, 1-50) in the SLN cohort versus 21 (range, 1-75) in the non-SLN cohort (p = <0.001). Adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with radiation therapy was administered in 122/153 (80%) SLN patients and 79/95 (83%) non-SLN patients; radiotherapy alone was administered in 12/153 (8%) SLN patients and 7/95 (7%) non-SLN patients (p = 0.8). At a median follow-up of 40 months, the 2-year PFS rates were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68-83%) in the SLN group and 71% (95% CI, 61-79%) in the non-SLN group (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of the SLN mapping algorithm into the staging of uterine serous cancer is feasible and does not appear to compromise prognosis. PFS in patients with uterine serous carcinoma undergoing SLN mapping, followed by adjuvant therapy, was similar to PFS in patients undergoing standard lymphadenectomy and adjuvant therapy.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with serous uterine carcinoma undergoing sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping compared with patients undergoing standard lymphadenectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all uterine cancerpatients treated at our institution from 2005 to 2015. Patients were separated into two cohorts: those who underwent SLN mapping at the time of staging (SLN) and those who underwent routine lymphadenectomy (the non-SLN group). SLN mapping was performed according to institutional protocol, incorporating a surgical algorithm and pathologic ultrastaging. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were identified-153 SLN mappings and 95 routine lymphadenectomies (pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph node dissection). No significant difference in age or body mass index was observed between the groups (p = 0.08 and p = 0.9, respectively). Minimally invasive surgery was utilized in 117/153 (77%) SLN patients and 30/95 (32%) non-SLN patients (p = <0.001). Stage distribution for the SLN and non-SLN cohorts demonstrated 106/153 (69%) and 59/95 (62%) patients with stage I/II disease, respectively, and 47/153 (31%) and 36/95 (38%) patients with stage III/IV disease, respectively (p = 0.3). The median number of nodes removed was 12 (range, 1-50) in the SLN cohort versus 21 (range, 1-75) in the non-SLN cohort (p = <0.001). Adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with radiation therapy was administered in 122/153 (80%) SLN patients and 79/95 (83%) non-SLN patients; radiotherapy alone was administered in 12/153 (8%) SLN patients and 7/95 (7%) non-SLN patients (p = 0.8). At a median follow-up of 40 months, the 2-year PFS rates were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68-83%) in the SLN group and 71% (95% CI, 61-79%) in the non-SLN group (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of the SLN mapping algorithm into the staging of uterine serous cancer is feasible and does not appear to compromise prognosis. PFS in patients with uterine serous carcinoma undergoing SLN mapping, followed by adjuvant therapy, was similar to PFS in patients undergoing standard lymphadenectomy and adjuvant therapy.
Authors: Omar Touhami; Xuan-Bich Trinh; Jean Gregoire; Alexandra Sebastianelli; Marie-Claude Renaud; Katherine Grondin; Marie Plante Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Fady Khoury-Collado; Gretchen E Glaser; Oliver Zivanovic; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Dennis S Chi; Mary L Gemignani; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-19 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
Authors: Brooke A Schlappe; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Jennifer Ducie; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Gretchen E Glaser; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Derman Basaran; Shaina Bruce; Emeline M Aviki; Jennifer J Mueller; Vance A Broach; Karen Cadoo; Robert A Soslow; Kaled M Alektiar; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: William A Zammarrelli; Michelle Greenman; Eric Rios-Doria; Katie Miller; Vance Broach; Jennifer J Mueller; Emeline Aviki; Kaled M Alektiar; Robert A Soslow; Lora H Ellenson; Vicky Makker; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 5.304
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