Role of lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer-a subgroup analysis of the patients excluded from the LION trial (the Charité cohort).

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecological Cancer Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101683
Robert Armbrust, Christina Fotopoulou, Dario Zocholl, Radoslav Chekerov, Mustafa Zelal Muallem, Iona Braicu, Klaus Pietzner, Philipp Harter, Jalid Sehouli
{"title":"Role of lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer-a subgroup analysis of the patients excluded from the LION trial (the Charité cohort).","authors":"Robert Armbrust, Christina Fotopoulou, Dario Zocholl, Radoslav Chekerov, Mustafa Zelal Muallem, Iona Braicu, Klaus Pietzner, Philipp Harter, Jalid Sehouli","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The phase III LION trial found no therapeutic benefit from systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with optimal upfront cytoreduction and normal-appearing lymph nodes. Patients were randomized intra-operatively, excluding those who could not be operated on when they were tumor-free or had suspicious/bulky lymph nodes upon inspection or palpation. This analysis focused on the outcomes of the group excluded because of bulky lymph nodes alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a monocentric, retrospective subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted at Charité University Hospital. We evaluated the same patients as in the LION trial. Tumor-free patients with presumed bulky/suspicious lymph nodes underwent full systematic lymphadenectomy after exclusion. Patients were analyzed according to the same endpoints as the LION trial and compared with those of the original study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 202 patients with a median age of 61 years (range; 37-74) were included; 83.6% had stage III/IV disease (n = 122) and predominantly high-grade serous histology (72%, n = 145). The rate of complete tumor resection was significantly lower in intra-operatively excluded patients (45%, n = 55) than in those included (92%, n = 112), with a significant negative impact on overall and progression-free survival (p = .042). Only 60% (n = 33) of the originally excluded patients had histologically positive lymph nodes, although 38.8% (n = 21) were presumed to be bulky by the surgeon. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival or overall survival between the patients who underwent optimal surgery and were excluded from the original LION study versus those included, regardless of their histological lymph node status and whether a lymphadenectomy was performed (p = .4, 95% CI 24.8 to 39).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with ovarian cancer, when operated on upfront without macroscopic residual disease, have the same survival regardless of whether they have bulky nodes as long as any bulky lymph nodes are removed. Moreover, we demonstrated that intra-operative lymph node evaluation by a surgeon is subjective and often inaccurate.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"101683"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101683","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The phase III LION trial found no therapeutic benefit from systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with optimal upfront cytoreduction and normal-appearing lymph nodes. Patients were randomized intra-operatively, excluding those who could not be operated on when they were tumor-free or had suspicious/bulky lymph nodes upon inspection or palpation. This analysis focused on the outcomes of the group excluded because of bulky lymph nodes alone.

Methods: This was a monocentric, retrospective subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted at Charité University Hospital. We evaluated the same patients as in the LION trial. Tumor-free patients with presumed bulky/suspicious lymph nodes underwent full systematic lymphadenectomy after exclusion. Patients were analyzed according to the same endpoints as the LION trial and compared with those of the original study.

Results: Overall, 202 patients with a median age of 61 years (range; 37-74) were included; 83.6% had stage III/IV disease (n = 122) and predominantly high-grade serous histology (72%, n = 145). The rate of complete tumor resection was significantly lower in intra-operatively excluded patients (45%, n = 55) than in those included (92%, n = 112), with a significant negative impact on overall and progression-free survival (p = .042). Only 60% (n = 33) of the originally excluded patients had histologically positive lymph nodes, although 38.8% (n = 21) were presumed to be bulky by the surgeon. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival or overall survival between the patients who underwent optimal surgery and were excluded from the original LION study versus those included, regardless of their histological lymph node status and whether a lymphadenectomy was performed (p = .4, 95% CI 24.8 to 39).

Conclusion: Patients with ovarian cancer, when operated on upfront without macroscopic residual disease, have the same survival regardless of whether they have bulky nodes as long as any bulky lymph nodes are removed. Moreover, we demonstrated that intra-operative lymph node evaluation by a surgeon is subjective and often inaccurate.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
期刊最新文献
Neuroendocrine cervical carcinomas: genomic insights, controversies in treatment strategies, and future directions: a NeCTuR study. Controversies in the Management of Mesonephric and Mesonephric-Like Adenocarcinomas of the Female Genital Tract. Controversies in vulvar cancer: revisiting the margin of error. Controversies in the management of ovarian granulosa cell and Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors. Controversies in the management of rare gynecologic cancers.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1