Patterns of care for vulval cancer treatment: the Queensland experience.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Stacey Davie, Andreas Obermair, Zoe Elizabeth West
{"title":"Patterns of care for vulval cancer treatment: the Queensland experience.","authors":"Stacey Davie, Andreas Obermair, Zoe Elizabeth West","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate patterns of care, post-operative adverse events, and recurrence rates in patients with vulval squamous cell carcinoma, undergoing sentinel node biopsy or inguino-femoral lymph node dissection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 124 patients with vulval squamous cell carcinoma between 2016 and 2020 who met the study eligibility criteria. We compared the proportion of patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy versus inguino-femoral lymph node dissection, along with their rates of post-operative adverse events, recurrences, and associated socioeconomic factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 124 patients, 58 (46.8%) underwent inguino-femoral lymph node dissection, and 66 (53.2%) underwent sentinel node biopsy. The utilization of sentinel node biopsy increased over the study period from 34.5% to 57.1%. Overall, 67 of 121 patients (55.4%) experienced at least one post-operative adverse event. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection group compared to the sentinel node biopsy group (87.9% vs 24.4%, p < .0001). Lymphoedema (n = 26, 44.8% vs n = 4, 6.4%), seroma (n = 30, 24.6% vs n = 6, 9.5%), and infections (n = 23, 19.0% vs n = 8, 12.7%) were more frequent in the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection group than in the sentinel node biopsy group. Recurrence rates and time to recurrence were comparable between groups. Socioeconomic factors had no impact on patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only approximately half of the patients requiring a groin lymph node assessment had a sentinel node biopsy. Morbidity associated with vulval cancer treatment remains high. Further research is warranted to reduce the treatment burden without compromising survival outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":"35 7","pages":"101956"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101956","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate patterns of care, post-operative adverse events, and recurrence rates in patients with vulval squamous cell carcinoma, undergoing sentinel node biopsy or inguino-femoral lymph node dissection.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 124 patients with vulval squamous cell carcinoma between 2016 and 2020 who met the study eligibility criteria. We compared the proportion of patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy versus inguino-femoral lymph node dissection, along with their rates of post-operative adverse events, recurrences, and associated socioeconomic factors.

Results: Of the 124 patients, 58 (46.8%) underwent inguino-femoral lymph node dissection, and 66 (53.2%) underwent sentinel node biopsy. The utilization of sentinel node biopsy increased over the study period from 34.5% to 57.1%. Overall, 67 of 121 patients (55.4%) experienced at least one post-operative adverse event. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection group compared to the sentinel node biopsy group (87.9% vs 24.4%, p < .0001). Lymphoedema (n = 26, 44.8% vs n = 4, 6.4%), seroma (n = 30, 24.6% vs n = 6, 9.5%), and infections (n = 23, 19.0% vs n = 8, 12.7%) were more frequent in the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection group than in the sentinel node biopsy group. Recurrence rates and time to recurrence were comparable between groups. Socioeconomic factors had no impact on patient outcomes.

Conclusions: Only approximately half of the patients requiring a groin lymph node assessment had a sentinel node biopsy. Morbidity associated with vulval cancer treatment remains high. Further research is warranted to reduce the treatment burden without compromising survival outcomes.

外阴癌治疗的护理模式:昆士兰的经验。
目的:评价外阴鳞状细胞癌患者行前哨淋巴结活检或腹股沟-股淋巴结清扫术的护理模式、术后不良事件和复发率。方法:回顾性分析2016年至2020年符合研究资格标准的124例外阴鳞状细胞癌患者。我们比较了接受前哨淋巴结活检和腹股沟-股淋巴结清扫的患者比例,以及他们的术后不良事件、复发率和相关的社会经济因素。结果:124例患者中,58例(46.8%)行腹股沟-股淋巴结清扫,66例(53.2%)行前哨淋巴结活检。前哨淋巴结活检的使用率在研究期间从34.5%增加到57.1%。总体而言,121例患者中有67例(55.4%)经历了至少一次术后不良事件。腹股沟-股淋巴结清扫组不良事件发生率明显高于前哨淋巴结活检组(87.9% vs 24.4%, p < 0.0001)。淋巴水肿(n = 26、44.8% vs n = 4、6.4%)、血清肿(n = 30、24.6% vs n = 6、9.5%)和感染(n = 23、19.0% vs n = 8、12.7%)在腹股沟-股淋巴结清扫组比前哨淋巴结活检组更常见。两组之间的复发率和复发时间具有可比性。社会经济因素对患者预后没有影响。结论:只有大约一半需要腹股沟淋巴结评估的患者进行了前哨淋巴结活检。与外阴癌治疗相关的发病率仍然很高。为了在不影响生存结果的情况下减轻治疗负担,需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信