Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial and cervical cancers using freehand SPECT—first experiences

Summary Background Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is the standard surgery for stage I endometrial cancer. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy has been used to establish whether there is extra-uterine disease and as a therapeutic procedure; however, randomised trials need to be done to assess therapeutic efficacy. The ASTEC surgical trial investigated whether pelvic lymphadenectomy could improve survival of women with endometrial cancer. Methods From 85 centres in four countries, 1408 women with histologically proven endometrial carcinoma thought preoperatively to be confined to the corpus were randomly allocated by a minimisation method to standard surgery (hysterectomy and BSO, peritoneal washings, and palpation of para-aortic nodes; n=704) or standard surgery plus lymphadenectomy (n=704). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. To control for postsurgical treatment, women with early-stage disease at intermediate or high risk of recurrence were randomised (independent of lymph-node status) into the ASTEC radiotherapy trial. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 16571884. Findings After a median follow-up of 37 months (IQR 24–58), 191 women (88 standard surgery group, 103 lymphadenectomy group) had died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·16 (95% CI 0·87–1·54; p=0·31) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year overall survival of 1% (95% CI −4 to 6). 251 women died or had recurrent disease (107 standard surgery group, 144 lymphadenectomy group), with an HR of 1·35 (1·06–1·73; p=0·017) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival of 6% (1–12). With adjustment for baseline characteristics and pathology details, the HR for overall survival was 1·04 (0·74–1·45; p=0·83) and for recurrence-free survival was 1·25 (0·93–1·66; p=0·14). Interpretation Our results show no evidence of benefit in terms of overall or recurrence-free survival for pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early endometrial cancer. Pelvic lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended as routine procedure for therapeutic purposes outside of clinical trials. Funding Medical Research Council and National Cancer Research Network.

Pelvic lymph nodes are the most common site of extrauterine tumor spread in early-stage endometrial cancer, but the clinical impact of lymphadenectomy has not been addressed in randomized studies. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether the addition of pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy to standard hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy improves overall and disease-free survival. From October 1, 1996, through March 31, 2006, 514 eligible patients with preoperative International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I endometrial carcinoma were randomly assigned to undergo pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (n = 264) or no lymphadenectomy (n = 250). Patients' clinical data, pathological tumor characteristics, and operative and early postoperative data were recorded at discharge from hospital. Late postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, and follow-up data were collected 6 months after surgery. Survival was analyzed by use of the log-rank test and a Cox multivariable regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 30 (interquartile range = 22-42) in the pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy arm and 0 (interquartile range = 0-0) in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (P < .001). Both early and late postoperative complications occurred statistically significantly more frequently in patients who had received pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (81 patients in the lymphadenectomy arm and 34 patients in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, P = .001). Pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy improved surgical staging as statistically significantly more patients with lymph node metastases were found in the lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (13.3% vs 3.2%, difference = 10.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 14.9%, P < .001). At a median follow-up of 49 months, 78 events (ie, recurrence or death) had been observed and 53 patients had died. The unadjusted risks for first event and death were similar between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR] for first event = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.71, P = .68, and HR for death = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.07, P = .50). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates in an intention-to-treat analysis were similar between arms (81.0% and 85.9% in the lymphadenectomy arm and 81.7% and 90.0% in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, respectively). Although systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy statistically significantly improved surgical staging, it did not improve disease-free or overall survival.

In response to findings that pelvic lymphadenectomy does not have any therapeutic benefit for endometrial cancer, we aimed to establish whether complete, systematic lymphadenectomy, including the para-aortic lymph nodes, should be part of surgical therapy for patients at intermediate and high risk of recurrence. We selected 671 patients with endometrial carcinoma who had been treated with complete, systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (n=325 patients) or combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (n=346) at two tertiary centres in Japan (January, 1986-June, 2004). Patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence were offered adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Overall survival was significantly longer in the pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy group than in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; p=0.0005). This association was also recorded in 407 patients at intermediate or high risk (p=0.0009), but overall survival was not related to lymphadenectomy type in low-risk patients. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors showed that in patients with intermediate or high risk of recurrence, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy reduced the risk of death compared with pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.44, 0.30-0.64; p<0.0001). Analysis of 328 patients with intermediate or high risk who were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy showed that patient survival improved with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (0.48, 0.29-0.83; p=0.0049) and with adjuvant chemotherapy (0.59, 0.37-1.00; p=0.0465) independently of one another. Combined pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is recommended as treatment for patients with endometrial carcinoma of intermediate or high risk of recurrence. If a prospective randomised or comparative cohort study is planned to validate the therapeutic effect of lymphadenectomy, it should include both pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients of intermediate or high risk of recurrence. Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment of Cancer, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.