Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index
Minerva Ginecologica 2009 February;61(1):1-12
Pelvic lymphadenectomy as an alternative to adjuvant radiotherapy in early stage endometrial cancer at high risk of recurrent lymphonodal metastases (Stage I)
Amato N. A. 1, Partipilo V. 2, Mele F. 3, Boscia F. 2, De Marzo P. 4
1 Unità Operativa di Ginecologia e Ostetricia Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche Università di Foggia, Foggia, Italia
2 Unità Operativa Complessa di Ginecologia e Ostetricia Ospedale “Di Venere”, Bari, Italia
3 Istituto di Anatomia Patologica Ospedale “Di Venere”, Bari, Italia
4 Unità Operativa Complessa di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia Ospedale “Teresa Masselli Mascia” San Severo, Foggia, Italia
Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the surgical approach without pelvic lymphadenectomy and with adjuvant radiotherapy in the patients suffering from endometrioid adenocarcinoma type at high risk (of lymphonodal metastasis) in early stage can be substituted by only surgery with pelvic lymphadenectomy (with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy).
Methods. A retrospective study was carried out on 56 patients who underwent surgery with eventual adjuvant radiotheraphy and were attended during the follow-up in the Operative Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics from 1997 to 2004. The patients were divided into two groups: the low risk group and the high risk group. The cancer grading (G) was defined before the surgery with an hystological exam on endometrial biopsies. The follow-up had a medium duration of 30 months (range: 9-44 months) and consisted of the evaluation of: cancer related survival (CRS); recurrence free survival (RFS). Both were evaluated according to age, risk type, and therapy adopted.
Results. Four patients (7.1%) showed relapse during the period of study in a medium time of 24 months (range: 12-36): 2 of these patients (C and D cases; 36%) had a relapse both locally (pelvic wall) and distantly; the other two (A and B cases; 36%) had only a distant relapse. None of the patients at the stage IA had a relapse, but it occurred in the 8.7% of the cases (N.=2) IB and in the 10.5 % of the patients IC (N.=2). One patient of the low risk group (3.8%) (case A) had a distant relapse (lungs) 12 months after the surgery and died 6 months after the appearance of the relapse without any additional treatment, because of age and of concomitant pathologies which suggested another illness. Three patients of the high risk group (10%) had a local and /or distant relapse (one only distant, two both distant and local). One of them with distant relapse (36 months after the primary treatment) (case B) is still alive, even though she has got a controlled cancer, 8 months after the rescue treatment (chemiotherapy), whereas two of them died in a medium time of 14 months (range 13-15 months) from the rescue treatment (C and D cases). One of the three patients of the high risk group underwent the standard surgical treatment with lynphoadenectomy (case B) whereas the other two underwent the standard surgical treatment with aiding radiotherapy (C and D cases). The CRS and the RFS were 96.2% and 96.2% in the low risk group, 93.3% and 90% in the high risk group, respectively.
Conclusion. The standard surgery offers a good prognosis to the low risk group patients. To the high risk group the CRS and the RFS were better with standard surgery with lymphadenectomy than with standard surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The degree of differentiation of the cancer is the most important prognostic factor in relation to the survival free from relapse (RFS).