Cargando…
Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5943115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29505525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009520 |
_version_ | 1783321574303072256 |
---|---|
author | Guo, Weina Cai, Jing Li, Min Wang, Hongbo Shen, Yi |
author_facet | Guo, Weina Cai, Jing Li, Min Wang, Hongbo Shen, Yi |
author_sort | Guo, Weina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis. METHODS: Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.84, P < .001, I(2) = 12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39–0.69, P < .001, I(2) = 41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21–1.08, P = .077, I(2) = 0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37–0.72, P < .001, I(2) = 0). No publication bias was observed among included studies. CONCLUSION: PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5943115 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59431152018-05-15 Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis Guo, Weina Cai, Jing Li, Min Wang, Hongbo Shen, Yi Medicine (Baltimore) Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis. METHODS: Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.84, P < .001, I(2) = 12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39–0.69, P < .001, I(2) = 41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21–1.08, P = .077, I(2) = 0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37–0.72, P < .001, I(2) = 0). No publication bias was observed among included studies. CONCLUSION: PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5943115/ /pubmed/29505525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009520 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
spellingShingle | Research Article Guo, Weina Cai, Jing Li, Min Wang, Hongbo Shen, Yi Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title | Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title_full | Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title_short | Survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis |
title_sort | survival benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5943115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29505525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009520 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guoweina survivalbenefitsofpelviclymphadenectomyversuspelvicandparaaorticlymphadenectomyinpatientswithendometrialcancerametaanalysis AT caijing survivalbenefitsofpelviclymphadenectomyversuspelvicandparaaorticlymphadenectomyinpatientswithendometrialcancerametaanalysis AT limin survivalbenefitsofpelviclymphadenectomyversuspelvicandparaaorticlymphadenectomyinpatientswithendometrialcancerametaanalysis AT wanghongbo survivalbenefitsofpelviclymphadenectomyversuspelvicandparaaorticlymphadenectomyinpatientswithendometrialcancerametaanalysis AT shenyi survivalbenefitsofpelviclymphadenectomyversuspelvicandparaaorticlymphadenectomyinpatientswithendometrialcancerametaanalysis |