Abstract Context There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective To ...systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. Evidence acquisition MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. Conclusions Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. Patient summary Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.
The extent of lymph node dissection (LND) in bladder cancer (BCa) patients at the time of radical cystectomy may affect oncologic outcome.
To evaluate whether extended versus limited LND prolongs ...recurrence-free survival (RFS).
Prospective, multicenter, phase-III trial patients with locally resectable T1G3 or muscle-invasive urothelial BCa (T2-T4aM0).
Randomization to limited (obturator, and internal and external iliac nodes) versus extended LND (in addition, deep obturator, common iliac, presacral, paracaval, interaortocaval, and para-aortal nodes up to the inferior mesenteric artery).
The primary endpoint was RFS. Secondary endpoints included cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and complications. The trial was designed to show 15% advantage of 5-yr RFS by extended LND.
In total, 401 patients were randomized from February 2006 to August 2010 (203 limited, 198 extended). The median number of dissected nodes was 19 in the limited and 31 in the extended arm. Extended LND failed to show superiority over limited LND with regard to RFS (5-yr RFS 65% vs 59%; hazard ratio HR=0.84 95% confidence interval 0.58–1.22; p=0.36), CSS (5-yr CSS 76% vs 65%; HR=0.70; p=0.10), and OS (5-yr OS 59% vs 50%; HR=0.78; p=0.12). Clavien grade ≥3 lymphoceles were more frequently reported in the extended LND group within 90d after surgery. Inclusion of T1G3 tumors may have contributed to the negative study result.
Extended LND failed to show a significant advantage over limited LND in RFS, CSS, and OS. A larger trial is required to determine whether extended compared with limited LND leads to a small, but clinically relevant, survival difference (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01215071).
In this study, we investigated the outcome in bladder cancer patients undergoing cystectomy based on the anatomic extent of lymph node resection. We found that extended removal of lymph nodes did not reduce the rate of tumor recurrence in the expected range.
In this randomized phase-III trial, extended lymph node dissection (LND) failed to show a statistically significant therapeutic advantage over limited LND in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy. The benefit from extended LND in the primary endpoint recurrence-free survival was smaller than expected.
To independently evaluate the impact of axillary surgery type and regional lymph node radiation (RLNR) on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) rates in patients with breast cancer.
From 2005 to ...2018, 1,815 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in a lymphedema screening trial. Patients were divided into the following 4 groups according to axillary surgery approach: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone, SLNB+RLNR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) alone, and ALND+RLNR. A perometer was used to objectively assess limb volume. All patients received baseline preoperative and follow-up measurements after treatment. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥ 10% relative increase in arm volume arising > 3 months postoperatively. The primary end point was the BCRL rate across the groups. Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional control and disease-free-survival.
The cohort included 1,340 patients with SLNB alone, 121 with SLNB+RLNR, 91 with ALND alone, and 263 with ALND+RLNR. The overall median follow-up time after diagnosis was 52.7 months for the entire cohort. The 5-year cumulative incidence rates of BCRL were 30.1%, 24.9%, 10.7%, and 8.0% for ALND+RLNR, ALND alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB alone, respectively. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for age, body mass index, surgery, and reconstruction type showed that the ALND-alone group had a significantly higher BCRL risk (hazard ratio HR, 2.66;
= .02) compared with the SLNB+RLNR group. There was no significant difference in BCRL risk between the ALND+RLNR and ALND-alone groups (HR, 1.20;
= .49) and between the SLNB-alone and SLNB+RLNR groups (HR, 1.33;
= .44). The 5-year locoregional control rates were similar for the ALND+RLNR, ALND-alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB-alone groups (2.8%, 3.8%, 0%, and 2.3%, respectively).
Although RLNR adds to the risk of lymphedema, the main risk factor is the type of axillary surgery used.
Background
This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010 and updated in Issue 9, 2015. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains ...controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who before surgery are thought to have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para‐aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para‐aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para‐aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta‐analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early‐stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para‐aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short‐term and long‐term sequelae. Therefore, it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment.
Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to June 2009 for the original review, updated the search to June 2015 for the last updated version and further extended the search to March 2017 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, s of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field.
Selection criteria
RCTs and quasi‐RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression‐free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random‐effects meta‐analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
Main results
978 unique references were identified via the search strategy. All but 50 were excluded by title and screening. Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, or completeness of outcome reporting.
Results of the meta‐analysis remained unchanged from the previous versions of this review and indicated no differences in overall and recurrence‐free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence‐free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate‐quality evidence).
We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery‐related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery‐related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high‐quality evidence).
Authors' conclusions
This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery‐related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher‐stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, ...node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life.
In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681).
Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5%
11.9%;
< .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND.
This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer.
Summary Background Sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) surgery was designed to minimise the side-effects of lymph-node surgery but still offer outcomes equivalent to axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND). The ...aims of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trial B-32 were to establish whether SLN resection in patients with breast cancer achieves the same survival and regional control as ALND, but with fewer side-effects. Methods NSABP B-32 was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done at 80 centres in Canada and the USA between May 1, 1999, and Feb 29, 2004. Women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to either SLN resection plus ALND (group 1) or to SLN resection alone with ALND only if the SLNs were positive (group 2). Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical Center (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) with a biased coin minimisation approach in an allocation ratio of 1:1. Stratification variables were age at entry (≤49 years, ≥50 years), clinical tumour size (≤2·0 cm, 2·1–4·0 cm, ≥4·1 cm), and surgical plan (lumpectomy, mastectomy). SLN resection was done with a blue dye and radioactive tracer. Outcome analyses were done in patients who were assessed as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes and for whom follow-up data were available. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. All deaths, irrespective of cause, were included. The mean time on study for the SLN-negative patients with follow-up information was 95·6 months (range 70·1–126·7). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00003830. Findings 5611 women were randomly assigned to the treatment groups, 3989 had pathologically negative SLN. 309 deaths were reported in the 3986 SLN-negative patients with follow-up information: 140 of 1975 patients in group 1 and 169 of 2011 in group 2. Log-rank comparison of overall survival in groups 1 and 2 yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1·20 (95% CI 0·96–1·50; p=0·12). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival were 91·8% (95% CI 90·4–93·3) in group 1 and 90·3% (88·8–91·8) in group 2. Treatment comparisons for disease-free survival yielded an unadjusted HR of 1·05 (95% CI 0·90–1·22; p=0·54). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for disease-free survival were 82·4% (80·5–84·4) in group 1 and 81·5% (79·6–83·4) in group 2. There were eight regional-node recurrences as first events in group 1 and 14 in group 2 (p=0·22). Patients are continuing follow-up for longer-term assessment of survival and regional control. The most common adverse events were allergic reactions, mostly related to the administration of the blue dye. Interpretation Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups. When the SLN is negative, SLN surgery alone with no further ALND is an appropriate, safe, and effective therapy for breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. Funding US Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Health and Human Services.
Background The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during ...pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy. Methods During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience. Results The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive. Conclusion Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.
Abstract Background The role of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in treating prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node invasion (LNI) remains controversial. Objective The ...relationship between the number of removed lymph nodes (RLNs) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) was tested in patients with LNI. Design, setting, and participants We examined data of 315 pN1 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and anatomically ePLND between 2000 and 2012 at one tertiary care centre. All patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy with or without adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the relationship between RLN number and CSM rate, after adjusting to all available covariates. Survival estimates were based on the multivariable model; patients were stratified according to RLN number using points of maximum separation. Results and limitations The average number of RLNs was 20.8 (median: 19; interquartile range: 14–25). Mean and median follow-up were 63.1 and 54 mo, respectively. At 10-yr, the CSM-free survival rate was 74.7%, 85.9%, 92.4%, 96.0%, and 97.9% for patients with 8, 17, 26, 36, and 45 RLNs, respectively. By multivariable analyses, the number of RLNs independently predicted lower CSM rate (hazard ratio HR: 0.93; p = 0.02). Other predictors of CSM were Gleason score 8–10 (HR: 3.3), number of positive nodes (HR: 1.2), and aRT treatment (HR: 0.26; all p ≤ 0.006). The study is limited by its retrospective nature. Conclusions In PCa patients with LNI, the removal of a higher number of LNs during RP was associated with improvement in cancer-specific survival rate. This implies that ePLND should be considered in all patients with a significant preoperative risk of harbouring LNI. Patient summary We found that removing more lymph nodes during prostate cancer surgery can significantly improve cancer-specific survival in patients with lymph node invasion.
We have previously reported on the 3-year results of the phase III German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial (DeCOG; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02434107) comparing distant ...metastasis-free survival (DMFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with positive sentinel lymph-node biopsy who were randomly assigned to complete lymph node dissection (CLND) or observation. Here, we report the final analysis with 72 months of median follow up.
The multicenter randomized phase III trial included patients with cutaneous melanoma of the trunk and extremities who were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo CLND or observation. DMFS was analyzed as the primary end point, and RFS, OS, and recurrences in the regional lymph node basin were secondary end points. The analysis was by intention to treat. Disease and survival information were collected quarterly.
From January 2006 to December 2014, 5,547 patients were screened to identify 1,256 with metastases in the sentinel lymph node (SLN). Of these, 483 (39%) were included: 241 in the observation arm and 242 in the CLND arm. In the final analysis, median follow up was 72 months (interquartile range, 67-77 months). No significant treatment-related difference was seen in the 5-year DMFS between the observation and CLND arms (67.6%
64.9%, respectively; hazard ratio HR, 1.08;
= .87). The 5-year RFS and OS also showed no difference (HR, 1.01 and 0.99, respectively). Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects occurred in 32 patients (13%) in the CLND arm; lymphedema (n = 20) and delayed wound healing (n = 5) were most common and no serious adverse events were reported.
The final results of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial with a median follow up of 72 months showed higher event rates, but similar HRs compared with those at the 3-year analysis. These results confirm that immediate CLND in SLN-positive patients is not superior to observation in terms of DMFS, RFS, or OS and support not recommending CLND in patients with SLN metastasis.
Abstract Background Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) are usually managed with androgen-deprivation therapy. Despite the absence of ...prospective randomized studies, salvage lymph node dissection (LND) has been proposed as an alternative treatment option. Objective To examine long-term outcomes of salvage LND in patients with nodal recurrent PCa documented by 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan. Design, setting, and participants Overall, 59 patients affected by biochemical recurrence (BCR) with 11C-choline PET/CT scan with pathologic activity treated between 2002 and 2008 were included. Intervention Pelvic and/or retroperitoneal salvage LND. Outcome measurements and statistical analyses Biochemical response (BR) was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <0.2 ng/ml at 40 d after surgery. BCR for those who achieved BR was defined as a PSA >0.2 ng/ml. Clinical recurrence (CR) was defined as a positive PET/CT scan after salvage LND in the presence of a rising PSA. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed time to BCR, CR, and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). Cox regression analyses were fitted to assess predictors of CR. Results and limitations Median follow-up after salvage LND was 81.1 mo. Overall, 35 patients (59.3%) achieved BR. The 8-yr BCR-free survival rate in patients with complete BR was 23%. Overall, the 8-yr CR- and CSM-free survival rates were 38% and 81%, respectively. In multivariable analyses evaluating preoperative variables, PSA at salvage LND represented the only predictor of CR ( p = 0.03). When postoperative variables were considered, BR and the presence of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases were significantly associated with the risk of CR (all p ≤ 0.04). Our study is limited by the lack of a control group. Conclusions Salvage LND may represent a therapeutic option for patients with BCR after RP and nodal pathologic uptake at 11C-choline PET/CT scan. Although most patients progressed to BCR after salvage LND, roughly 40% of them experienced CR-free survival. Patient summary Salvage lymph node dissection may represent a therapeutic option for selected patients with nodal recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Roughly 40% of men did not show any further clinical recurrence at long-term follow-up after surgery.
PDF
