Efficacy of Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Study
- 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 7 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 8 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
- 9 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Science, Niigata, Japan.
- 10 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
Abstract
Objective : The prognostic impact for ovarian cancer treatment of employing a systematic para-aortic and pelvic lym phadenectomy is still poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of adding a para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PA) to the pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL), as compared with solely the pelvic lym phadenectomy. Materials and Methods : A retrospective study of patient outcomes was conducted of ovarian cancer patients who underwent optimal debulking surgery, concurrent with either PA + PL or PL alone, between 2000 and 2009 at our Osaka General Medical Center . Results : One hundred twenty-one patients with ovarian cancer underwent surgery. Forty-four patients (36%) underwent optimal debulking surgery (all residual disease was < 1 cm ) concurrent with lymphadenectomy. Seventeen patients underwent PA + PL (PA group), and 27 patients underwent PL alone (PL group). There were no significant differences in terms of overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.82; p = 0.29) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.19 to 2.00; p = 0.40) between the PA group and the PL group. Both OS and PFS also failed to show significant differences, even when comparing them among 26 cases of FIGO stage I cases. Conclusions: Our data failed to show any prognostic improvement for ovarian cancer by adding para-aortic lymphadenectomy to the standard pelvic lymphadenectomy regimen.
- T. Matsuda, T. Marugame, K. I. Kamo, et al., “The Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer Incidence and Incidence Rates in Japan in 2005: Based on Data from 12 Population-Based Cancer Registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) Project,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2011, pp. 139-147. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyq169
- E. Burghardt, F. Girardi, M. Lahousen, et al., “Patterns of Pelvic and Paraaortic Lymph Node Involvement in Ovarian Cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1991, pp. 103-106. doi:10.1016/0090-8258(91)90099-Q
- I. Cass, A. J. Li, C. D. Runowicz, et al., “Pattern of Lymph Node Metastases in Clinically Unilateral Stage I Invasive Epithelial Ovarian Carcinomas,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2001, pp. 56-61. doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.6027
- FIGO Cancer Committee, “Staging Announcements,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 25, No. 3, 1986, pp. 383-385. doi:10.1016/0090-8258(86)90092-2
- P. B. Panici, G. Scambia, G. Baiocchi, et al., “Anatomical Study of Para-Aortic and Pelvic Lymph-Nodes in Gynecologic Malignancies,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 79, No. 4, 1992, pp. 498-502.
- G. Ferraris, A. Lanza, F. D’Addato, et al., “Techniques of Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in the Surgical Treatment of Cervix Carcinoma,” European Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 9, 1998, pp. 83-86.
- P. B. Panici, G. Scambia, G. Baiocchi, et al., “Technique and Feasibility of Systematic Paraaortic and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecologic Malignancies, A Prospective Study,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1991, pp. 133-140. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.1991.tb00028.x
- C. T. Griffiths, “Surgical Resection of Tumor Bulk in the Primary Treatment of Ovarian Carcinoma,” The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 42, 1975, pp. 101-104.
- N. F. Hacker, J. S. Berek, L. D. Lagasse, et al., “Primary Cytoreductive Surgery for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 61, No. 4, 1983, pp. 413-420
- E. L. Kaplan and P. Meier, “Non Parametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 53, No. 282, 1958, pp. 457-481. doi:10.1080/0162 1459.1958.10501452
- R. Peto, M. C. Pike, P. Armitage, et al., “Design and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Requiring Prolonged Observation of Each Patient. II. Analysis and Example,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1977, pp. 1-39. doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1