4.3 Article

Lymph node ratio may predict the benefit of postoperative radiotherapy in node-positive cervical cancer

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 7, Issue 20, Pages 29420-29428

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8840

Keywords

cervical cancer; lymph node ratio; postoperative radiotherapy; survival; SEER

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81571418]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2015J01550, 2013D001]
  3. Foundation for Young Scholar of Fujian Provincial Health Department [2014-ZQN-ZD-31]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The standard treatment for node-positive cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy is pelvic radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy. Given the potential toxicity of postoperative radiotherapy, we used the lymph node ratio (LNR) to assess the benefit of postoperative radiotherapy in lymph node-positive cervical cancer patients. Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database (1988-2010) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression proportional hazard analysis. A total of 2,269 eligible patients were identified (median follow-up, 78.0 months); 1,863 (82.1%) patients received postoperative radiotherapy. In both univariate and multivariate analysis multivariate analysis, a higher LNR was significantly associated with a poorer outcome. A LNR > 0.16 was associated with poorer cervical cancer-related survival (CCSS) (hazard Ratio [HR] 1.376, confidence interval [CI] 1.082-1.750; P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 1.287, CI 1.056-1.569; P = 0.012). Postoperative radiotherapy was only associated with survival benefits in patients with a LNR > 0.16 (CCSS, P < 0.001; OS, P < 0.001) and not in patients with a LNR = 0.16 (CCSS, P = 0.620; OS, P = 0.167); these trends were not affected by number of removed lymph nodes. A higher LNR is associated with a poorer survival in lymph node-positive cervical cancer. The survival benefits of postoperative radiotherapy appear to be limited to patients with a LNR > 0.16.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available