Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Versus No Lymphadenectomy for Endometrial Cancer

L. Gertallah, A. Almoregy, T. Baiomy, K. F. Helal, M. F. Abohashim, Rehab Hemeda, Doaa Mandour, Ahmed Embaby, O. Harb
{"title":"Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Versus No Lymphadenectomy for Endometrial Cancer","authors":"L. Gertallah, A. Almoregy, T. Baiomy, K. F. Helal, M. F. Abohashim, Rehab Hemeda, Doaa Mandour, Ahmed Embaby, O. Harb","doi":"10.1177/0300891620914161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although lymphadenectomy is advised for accurate surgical endometrial-carcinoma staging, the procedure is not performed regularly worldwide. Most studies on it include few patients and mainly compare pelvic with pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Comparing lymphadenectomy with non-lymphadenectomy is rare. The current study examined prognostic significance and survival advantages of pelvic and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy compared to no lymphadenectomy. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 75 patients with endometrial carcinomas. The patients were divided into 3 treatment groups based on whether or not lymph-node dissection was performed and the extent of the dissections: (1) pelvic lymphadenectomy; (2) pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy; and (3) no lymphadenectomy. Correlations were analyzed among the surgical techniques used for the 3 groups with respect to the need for adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy, recurrences, and survival outcomes. Results: Pelvic and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy produced more-favorable overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates than no lymphadenectomy (p = 0.047). A significant difference was noted among the 3 treatment groups for OS rate and disease-free survival rates (p = 0.015 and 0.017, respectively). The recurrence rates were 47.1%, 35.7%, and 68.8% in the pelvic lymphadenectomy, and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and no lymphadenectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.037). Conclusions: This study showed that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy improved the OS and PFS rates of patients with endometrial cancer.","PeriodicalId":23450,"journal":{"name":"Tumori Journal","volume":"95 1","pages":"29 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tumori Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620914161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although lymphadenectomy is advised for accurate surgical endometrial-carcinoma staging, the procedure is not performed regularly worldwide. Most studies on it include few patients and mainly compare pelvic with pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Comparing lymphadenectomy with non-lymphadenectomy is rare. The current study examined prognostic significance and survival advantages of pelvic and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy compared to no lymphadenectomy. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 75 patients with endometrial carcinomas. The patients were divided into 3 treatment groups based on whether or not lymph-node dissection was performed and the extent of the dissections: (1) pelvic lymphadenectomy; (2) pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy; and (3) no lymphadenectomy. Correlations were analyzed among the surgical techniques used for the 3 groups with respect to the need for adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy, recurrences, and survival outcomes. Results: Pelvic and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy produced more-favorable overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates than no lymphadenectomy (p = 0.047). A significant difference was noted among the 3 treatment groups for OS rate and disease-free survival rates (p = 0.015 and 0.017, respectively). The recurrence rates were 47.1%, 35.7%, and 68.8% in the pelvic lymphadenectomy, and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and no lymphadenectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.037). Conclusions: This study showed that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy improved the OS and PFS rates of patients with endometrial cancer.
盆腔淋巴结切除术和盆腔及主动脉旁淋巴结切除术与不切除子宫内膜癌的比较
背景:虽然淋巴结切除术被建议用于准确的子宫内膜癌手术分期,但该手术在世界范围内并不经常进行。大多数研究涉及的患者较少,主要比较盆腔与盆腔/腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术。比较淋巴结切除术和非淋巴结切除术是罕见的。目前的研究考察了盆腔和盆腔/腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术与不进行淋巴结切除术相比的预后意义和生存优势。材料和方法:对75例子宫内膜癌患者进行回顾性队列分析。根据是否行淋巴结清扫及清扫程度将患者分为3个治疗组:(1)盆腔淋巴结清扫;(2)盆腔/主动脉旁淋巴结切除术;(3)未行淋巴结切除术。分析了三组患者使用的手术技术与辅助放疗或化疗的必要性、复发率和生存结果的相关性。结果:盆腔和盆腔/腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术的总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)比未行淋巴结切除术的生存率更高(p = 0.047)。3个治疗组的总生存率和无病生存率差异有统计学意义(p值分别为0.015和0.017)。盆腔淋巴结切除术组、盆腔/主动脉旁淋巴结切除术组和未行淋巴结切除术组的复发率分别为47.1%、35.7%和68.8% (p = 0.037)。结论:本研究表明盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结切除术可提高子宫内膜癌患者的OS和PFS率。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信