Nicolò Bizzarri1, Andreas du Bois2, Robert Fruscio3, Francesca De Felice4, Pierandrea De Iaco5, Jvan Casarin6, Enrico Vizza7, Vito Chiantera8, Giacomo Corrado1, Stefano Cianci9, Sonia Magni3, Debora Ferrari3, Daniela Giuliani3, Philipp Harter2, Beyhan Ataseven2, Mareike Bommert2, Anna Myriam Perrone5, Giovanni Scambia10, Anna Fagotti11. 1. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. 3. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 5. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Filippo Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 7. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS-Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. 8. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS Ospedali Civico Di Cristina Benfratelli, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 9. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy; Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy. 10. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.scambia@policlinicogemelli.it. 11. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic role of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical staging of apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential therapeutic role of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with eEOC. METHODS: Multi-center retrospective cohort study, comparing women with apparent eEOC who underwent comprehensive bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (defined as ≥20 lymph nodes) versus patients receiving no lymphadenectomy or lymph node sampling, from 05/1985 to 12/2016. Patients with bulky nodes at CT-scan and those without complete intra-peritoneal surgical staging were excluded. Only patients who received at least 3 cycles of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy were included. RESULTS: Out of 2559 patients with FIGO stage IA-IIIA1 ovarian cancer, 639 (25.0%) met inclusion criteria. 360 (56.3%) underwent comprehensive lymphadenectomy, 150 (23.5%) lymph node sampling and 129 (20.2%) no lymphadenectomy. Patients who underwent comprehensive lymphadenectomy were younger (p < 0.001), experienced a higher number of severe post-operative complications (p = 0.008) and had a longer time to start chemotherapy (p = 0.034). There was no difference in intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 63 months (range, 5-342). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.7% vs. 76.5% vs. 68.3% (p = 0.006), and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92.3% vs. 94.5% vs. 89.8% (p = 0.165) in women who received comprehensive lymphadenectomy vs. lymph node sampling vs. no lymphadenectomy, respectively. Lymphadenectomy represented an independent factor for DFS improvement, HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.37-0.73) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical staging of eEOC improves DFS for the price of increasing post-operative complications and time to chemotherapy but does not affect OS. Better understanding of tumor biology may help to identify those patients in whom lymphadenectomy should still play a role.
OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic role of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical staging of apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential therapeutic role of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with eEOC. METHODS: Multi-center retrospective cohort study, comparing women with apparent eEOC who underwent comprehensive bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (defined as ≥20 lymph nodes) versus patients receiving no lymphadenectomy or lymph node sampling, from 05/1985 to 12/2016. Patients with bulky nodes at CT-scan and those without complete intra-peritoneal surgical staging were excluded. Only patients who received at least 3 cycles of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy were included. RESULTS: Out of 2559 patients with FIGO stage IA-IIIA1 ovarian cancer, 639 (25.0%) met inclusion criteria. 360 (56.3%) underwent comprehensive lymphadenectomy, 150 (23.5%) lymph node sampling and 129 (20.2%) no lymphadenectomy. Patients who underwent comprehensive lymphadenectomy were younger (p < 0.001), experienced a higher number of severe post-operative complications (p = 0.008) and had a longer time to start chemotherapy (p = 0.034). There was no difference in intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 63 months (range, 5-342). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.7% vs. 76.5% vs. 68.3% (p = 0.006), and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92.3% vs. 94.5% vs. 89.8% (p = 0.165) in women who received comprehensive lymphadenectomy vs. lymph node sampling vs. no lymphadenectomy, respectively. Lymphadenectomy represented an independent factor for DFS improvement, HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.37-0.73) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical staging of eEOC improves DFS for the price of increasing post-operative complications and time to chemotherapy but does not affect OS. Better understanding of tumor biology may help to identify those patients in whom lymphadenectomy should still play a role.