Objective: To assess 5-year oncologic outcomes of apparent early-stage high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic lymphadenectomy. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective, propensity-matched study evaluating data of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer (according to ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines) undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (with and without para-aortic lymphadenectomy). Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. Results: Overall, the charts of 242 patients with high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer were retrieved. Data on 73 (30.1%) patients undergoing hysterectomy plus sentinel node mapping were analyzed. Forty-two (57.5%) and 31 (42.5%) patients were classified in the high-intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively. Unilateral sentinel node mapping was achieved in all patients. Bilateral mapping was achieved in 67 (91.7%) patients. Three (4.1%) patients had site-specific lymphadenectomy (two pelvic areas only and one pelvic plus para-aortic area), while adjunctive nodal dissection was omitted in the hemipelvis of the other three (4.1%) patients. Sentinel nodes were detected in the para-aortic area in eight (10.9%) patients. Twenty-four (32.8%) patients were diagnosed with nodal disease. A propensity-score matching was used to compare the aforementioned group of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping with a group of patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Seventy patient pairs were selected (70 having sentinel node mapping vs. 70 having lymphadenectomy). Patients undergoing sentinel node mapping experienced similar 5-year disease-free survival (HR: 1.233; 95%CI: 0.6217 to 2.444; p = 0.547, log-rank test) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 1.505; 95%CI: 0.6752 to 3.355; p = 0.256, log-rank test) than patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Conclusions: Sentinel node mapping does not negatively impact 5-year outcomes of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Further prospective studies are warranted.
Cuccu, I., Raspagliesi, F., Malzoni, M., Vizza, E., Papadia, A., Di Donato, V., Giannini, A., De Iaco, P., Perrone, A. M., Plotti, F., Angioli, R., Casarin, J., Ghezzi, F., Cianci, S., Vizzielli, G., Restaino, S., Petrillo, M., Sorbi, F., Multinu, F., Schivardi, G., De Vitis, L. A., Falcone, F., Lalli, L., Berretta, R., Mueller, M. D., Tozzi, R., Chiantera, V., Benedetti Panici, P., Fanfani, F., Scambia, G., Bogani, G., Sentinel node mapping in high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer: Analysis of 5-year oncologic outcomes, <<EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY>>, 2024; 50 (4): N/A-N/A. [doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108018] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/272567]
Sentinel node mapping in high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer: Analysis of 5-year oncologic outcomes
Fanfani, Francesco;Scambia, Giovanni;
2024
Abstract
Objective: To assess 5-year oncologic outcomes of apparent early-stage high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic lymphadenectomy. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective, propensity-matched study evaluating data of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer (according to ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines) undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (with and without para-aortic lymphadenectomy). Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. Results: Overall, the charts of 242 patients with high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer were retrieved. Data on 73 (30.1%) patients undergoing hysterectomy plus sentinel node mapping were analyzed. Forty-two (57.5%) and 31 (42.5%) patients were classified in the high-intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively. Unilateral sentinel node mapping was achieved in all patients. Bilateral mapping was achieved in 67 (91.7%) patients. Three (4.1%) patients had site-specific lymphadenectomy (two pelvic areas only and one pelvic plus para-aortic area), while adjunctive nodal dissection was omitted in the hemipelvis of the other three (4.1%) patients. Sentinel nodes were detected in the para-aortic area in eight (10.9%) patients. Twenty-four (32.8%) patients were diagnosed with nodal disease. A propensity-score matching was used to compare the aforementioned group of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping with a group of patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Seventy patient pairs were selected (70 having sentinel node mapping vs. 70 having lymphadenectomy). Patients undergoing sentinel node mapping experienced similar 5-year disease-free survival (HR: 1.233; 95%CI: 0.6217 to 2.444; p = 0.547, log-rank test) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 1.505; 95%CI: 0.6752 to 3.355; p = 0.256, log-rank test) than patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Conclusions: Sentinel node mapping does not negatively impact 5-year outcomes of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Further prospective studies are warranted.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
