4.6 Article

A preoperative risk-scoring system to predict lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer and stratify patients for lymphadenectomy

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 142, 期 2, 页码 273-277

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.06.004

关键词

Uterine cancer; Lymph node metastasis; Pelvic lymphadenectomy; Para-aortic lymphadenectomy; Cancer antigen 125; Myometrial invasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This study aimed to validate the preoperative scoring system adopted in the Kanagawa Cancer Center (KCC) to stratify endometrial cancer patients for lymphadenectomy according to the risk of developing lymph node metastasis (LNM). Methods. The records of 432 and 221 uterine cancer patients treated in the KCC and Yokohama City University (YCU), respectively, were retrospectively analyzed. The KCC classified patients for LNM risk based on tumor volume, myometrial invasion, histological grade, and serum CA125 levels, while YCU used only myometrial invasion. Lymphadenectomy was omitted for 156 patients with 0 LNM risk, while pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLX) or PLX with para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PLAX) were performed for those with low and high LNM risk, respectively. The predicted and actual LNM rates were compared between the KCC and YCU patients, and cancer recurrence and overall survival were analyzed. Results. There was no difference in survival between patients with LNM score 0 who were or were not treated with lymphadenectomy. None (0%) developed LNM and only 1 (0.6%) had recurrence. Patients who underwent PLX but not PLAX (low LNM score) had a low tumor recurrence rate in the para-aortic nodes (1.3%). The KCC scoring system was significantly more accurate than the YCU system in predicting LNM in the high-risk group (P < 0.05) and demonstrated that PLAX was unnecessary in almost 50% of the YCU cases. Conclusion. The KCC preoperative scoring system is useful to predict LNM risk, and thereby prevent unnecessary lymphadenectomy or to determine its extent in endometrial cancer patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据