Brooke A Schlappe1, Amy L Weaver2, Jennifer A Ducie1, Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson1, Sean C Dowdy3, William A Cliby3, Gretchen E Glaser4, Robert A Soslow5, Kaled M Alektiar6, Vicky Makker7, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum1, Andrea Mariani3, Mario M Leitao8. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: leitaom@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare oncologic outcomes in the staging of deeply invasive endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) using a sentinel lymph node algorithm (SLN) versus pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy to the renal veins (LND); to compare outcomes in node-negative cases. METHODS: At two institutions, patients with deeply invasive (≥50% myometrial invasion) EEC were identified. One institution used LND (2004-2008), the other SLN (2005-2013). FIGO stage IV cases were excluded. Clinical characteristics and follow-up data were recorded. RESULTS: 176 patients were identified (LND, 94; SLN, 82). SLN patients were younger (p = 0.003) and had more LVSI (p < 0.001). 9.8% in the SLN and 29.8% in the LND cohorts, respectively, received no adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001). There was no association between type of assessment and recurrence; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR; LND vs. SLN) 0.87 (95%CI 0.40, 1.89) PFS. After controlling for age and adjuvant therapy, there was no association between assessment method and OS (aHR 2.54; 95%CI 0.81, 7.91). The node-negative cohort demonstrated no association between survival and assessment method: aHR 0.69 (95%CI 0.23, 2.03) PFS, 0.81 (95%CI 0.16, 4.22) OS. In the node-negative cohort, neither adjuvant EBRT+/-IVRT (HR 1.63; 95%CI 0.18, 14.97) nor adjuvant chemotherapy+/-EBRT+/-IVRT (HR 0.49; 95%CI 0.11, 2.22) were associated with OS, compared to no adjuvant therapy or IVRT-only. CONCLUSION: Use of an SLN algorithm in deeply invasive EEC does not impair oncologic outcomes. Survival is excellent in node-negative cases, irrespective of assessment method. Adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative patients does not appear to impact outcome.
OBJECTIVES: To compare oncologic outcomes in the staging of deeply invasive endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) using a sentinel lymph node algorithm (SLN) versus pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy to the renal veins (LND); to compare outcomes in node-negative cases. METHODS: At two institutions, patients with deeply invasive (≥50% myometrial invasion) EEC were identified. One institution used LND (2004-2008), the other SLN (2005-2013). FIGO stage IV cases were excluded. Clinical characteristics and follow-up data were recorded. RESULTS: 176 patients were identified (LND, 94; SLN, 82). SLNpatients were younger (p = 0.003) and had more LVSI (p < 0.001). 9.8% in the SLN and 29.8% in the LND cohorts, respectively, received no adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001). There was no association between type of assessment and recurrence; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR; LND vs. SLN) 0.87 (95%CI 0.40, 1.89) PFS. After controlling for age and adjuvant therapy, there was no association between assessment method and OS (aHR 2.54; 95%CI 0.81, 7.91). The node-negative cohort demonstrated no association between survival and assessment method: aHR 0.69 (95%CI 0.23, 2.03) PFS, 0.81 (95%CI 0.16, 4.22) OS. In the node-negative cohort, neither adjuvant EBRT+/-IVRT (HR 1.63; 95%CI 0.18, 14.97) nor adjuvant chemotherapy+/-EBRT+/-IVRT (HR 0.49; 95%CI 0.11, 2.22) were associated with OS, compared to no adjuvant therapy or IVRT-only. CONCLUSION: Use of an SLN algorithm in deeply invasive EEC does not impair oncologic outcomes. Survival is excellent in node-negative cases, irrespective of assessment method. Adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative patients does not appear to impact outcome.
Authors: Sanjeev Kumar; Karl C Podratz; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Sean C Dowdy; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; William A Cliby; Gary L Keeney; Gillian Thomas; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Sarika Gupta; Nicole M Stavitzski; Xiang Zhu; Erica L Takimoto; Ajit Gubbi; Glenn E Bigsby; Lorna A Brudie; James E Kendrick; Sarfraz Ahmad Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-02 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: Christine H Kim; Robert A Soslow; Kay J Park; Emma L Barber; Fady Khoury-Collado; Joyce N Barlin; Yukio Sonoda; Martee L Hensley; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jennifer A Ducie; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Narisha Ali; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; Giorgio Bogani; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Robert A Soslow; Gary L Keeney; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Katherine I Stewart; Jarrod S Eska; Ross F Harrison; Rudy Suidan; Ann Abraham; Gary B Chisholm; Larissa A Meyer; Shannon N Westin; Nicole D Fleming; Michael Frumovitz; Thomas A Aloia; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.437
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: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064
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
Authors: Tommaso Grassi; Andrea Mariani; David Cibula; Pamela T Soliman; Vera J Suman; Amy L Weaver; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Britta Weigelt; Gretchen E Glaser; Serena Cappuccio; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Mario M Leitao; Qin C Zhou; Natalia R Gomez-Hidalgo; Alexia Iasonos; Ray Baser; Marissa Mezzancello; Kaity Chang; Jae Ward; Dennis S Chi; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Carol L Brown; Jennifer J Mueller; Ginger J Gardner; Elizabeth L Jewell; Vance Broach; Oliver Zivanovic; Sean C Dowdy; Andrea Mariani; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Francesco Multinu; Jennifer A Ducie; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Brooke A Schlappe; William A Cliby; Gretchen E Glaser; Tommaso Grassi; Gary L Keeney; Amy L Weaver; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: F J Backes; A S Felix; M Plante; J Grégoire; S A Sullivan; E C Rossi; E J Tanner; K I Stewart; P T Soliman; R W Holloway; N R Abu-Rustum; M M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.304