PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2013 | 11 | 2 | 151–158
Article title

Limfadenektomia miednicza i okołoaortalna w przypadku raka endometrium

Content
Title variants
EN
Pelvic and periaortic lymphadenectomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Treatment of endometrial cancer includes surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Since early 1990s, a matter of much controversy remains the scope of surgery, particularly in the context of excision of lymph nodes. Currently valid surgical classification of clinical stages entails the need to assess the presence of metastases to pelvic and periaortic nodes (FIGO 2009). Technique of mapping sentinel nodes in endometrial cancer is currently being developed and is inherently complicated due to several routes of lymphatic drainage from the uterus. Excision of lymph nodes should be a part of routine surgical staging, as apart from diagnostic-prognostic value, it is of par­amount significance for clinical decision-making process. Planning of adjuvant therapy without such an assessment is imprecise. Intraoperative evaluation of extent of the neoplastic process is much more precise than assessment based on imaging studies or clinical criteria of staging, promoted by some centers. An increasing number of centers consid­er lymphadenectomy as an indispensable component of endometrial cancer management – according to present-day standards, reliable staging of endometrial cancer requires excision and study of lymph nodes. More extensive procedure is not associated with significant increase of complication rate, while reduces number of patients requir­ing radiotherapy, affecting favorably the patients’ quality of life. Patients undergoing pelvic and periaortic lymph­adenectomy benefit from a longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Most frequent complication of these procedures is intraoperative bleeding, thromboembolic events and lymphocele. Favorable effects of a more extensive procedure are seen mainly in centers specialized in gynecologic oncology, where median number of excised pelvic and periaortic lymph nodes is significantly higher.
PL
W leczeniu raka błony śluzowej macicy stosuje się leczenie chirurgiczne, radioterapię, chemioterapię, hormonoterapię. Od początku lat dziewięćdziesiątych XX wieku kontrowersje wzbudza rozległość operacji, szczególnie w za­kresie usuwania węzłów chłonnych. Obecnie obowiązująca chirurgiczna klasyfikacja stopnia zaawansowania tego nowotworu wskazuje na konieczność oceny występowania przerzutów do węzłów chłonnych miednicy oraz węzłów okołoaortalnych (FIGO 2009). Technika oznaczenia węzła wartownika w raku endometrium jest na etapie opraco­wywania i jest utrudniona z powodu kilku dróg spływu chłonki z macicy. Usuwanie węzłów chłonnych powinno być elementem chirurgicznej oceny zaawansowania tego nowotworu, gdyż poza wartością diagnostyczno-rokowniczą ma także znaczenie decyzyjne. Zaplanowanie terapii uzupełniającej bez takiej oceny jest nieprecyzyjne. Operacyjna ocena rozległości procesu nowotworowego cechuje się znacznie większą dokładnością niż ocena za pomocą badań obrazowych oraz kryteriów klinicznych zaawansowania tego nowotworu, promowanych przez część ośrodków. Zwiększa się liczba placówek uznających usuwanie węzłów chłonnych za niezbędny element leczenia operacyjnego raka endometrium – przy obecnym poziomie wiedzy prawidłowa ocena stopnia zaawansowania raka endometrium wymaga usuwania węzłów chłonnych. Poszerzenie zabiegu nie zwiększa znacznie liczby powikłań, za to zmniejsza częstość stosowania radioterapii, co korzystnie wpływa na jakość życia chorych. W przypadkach, w których usunięto węzły chłonne miednicy mniejszej wraz z węzłami okołoaortalnymi, stwierdzono dłuższy czas wolny od wznowy oraz dłuższe przeżycie. Najczęstsze powikłania takich zabiegów to krwawienie śródoperacyjne, incydenty zakrzepowo­-zatorowe, występowanie lymphocele. Korzystne wyniki poszerzenia zabiegu są obserwowane głównie w wyspecja­lizowanych ośrodkach ginekologii onkologicznej, w których mediana liczby usuniętych węzłów chłonnych miednicy oraz okołoaortalnych jest zdecydowanie większa.
Discipline
Year
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
151–158
Physical description
References
  • 1.Lewin S.N., Herzog T.J., Barrena Medel N.I. i wsp.: Compar­ative performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1141–1149.
  • 2.Zaino R.J.: FIGO staging of endometrial adenocarcinoma: a critical review and proposal. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2009; 28: 1–9.
  • 3.Petru E., Lück H.J., Stuart G. i wsp.: Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) proposals for changes of the current FIGO staging system. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009; 143: 69–74.
  • 4.Zaino R.J.: Lymph-vascular space invasion in endometrial adenocarcinoma: confusion, confessions, and conclusions. Gynecol. Oncol. 2002; 87: 240–242.
  • 5.Todo Y., Kato H., Kaneuchi M. i wsp.: Survival effect of para-aor­tic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010; 375: 1165–1172.
  • 6.Duncan K.A., Drinkwater K.J., Frost C. i wsp.: Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin. Radiol. 2012; 67: 523–530.
  • 7.Beddy P., O’Neill A.C., Yamamoto A.K. i wsp.: FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer: added benefits of MR imag­ing. Radiographics 2012; 32: 241–254.
  • 8.Morrow C.P., Bundy B.N., Kurman R.J. i wsp.: Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clin­ical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gyneco­logic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 1991; 40: 55–65.
  • 9.Convery P.A., Cantrell L.A., Di Santo N. i wsp.: Retrospective review of an intraoperative algorithm to predict lymph node metastasis in low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gyne­col. Oncol. 2011; 123: 65–70.
  • 10.Dowdy S.C., Borah B.J., Bakkum-Gamez J.N. i wsp.: Pro­spective assessment of survival, morbidity, and cost associat­ed with lymphadenectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 127: 5–10.
  • 11.Kang S., Lee J.M., Lee J.K. i wsp.: How low is low enough? Evaluation of various risk-assessment models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: a Korean multicenter study. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 23: 251–256.
  • 12.Kang S., Kang W.D., Chung H.H. i wsp.: Preoperative identi­fication of a low-risk group for lymph node metastasis in endo­metrial cancer: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30: 1329–1334.
  • 13.Kang S., Togo Y., Odagiri T. i wsp.: A low-risk group for lymph node metastasis is accurately identified by Korean gynecologic oncology group criteria in two Japanese cohorts with endome­trial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 129: 33–37.
  • 14.Creasman W.T., Odicino F., Maisonneuve P. i wsp.: Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynaecological Cancer. J. Epidemiol. Biostat. 1998; 3: 35–61.
  • 15.Creasman W.T.: Endometrial cancer: incidence, prognostic fac­tors, diagnosis, and treatment. Semin. Oncol. 1997; 24 (supl. 1): S1-140–S1-150.
  • 16.Boren T., Lea J., Kehoe S. i wsp.: Lymph node metastasis in endometrioid adenocarcinomas of the uterine corpus with occult cervical involvement. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 127: 43–46.
  • 17.Furberg A.S., Thune I.: Metabolic abnormalities (hypertension, hyperglycemia and overweight), lifestyle (high energy intake and physical inactivity) and endometrial cancer risk in a Norwegian cohort. Int. J. Cancer 2003; 104: 669–676.
  • 18.Weiderpass E., Persson I., Adami H.O. i wsp.: Body size in dif­ferent periods of life, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and risk of postmenopausal endometrial cancer (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control 2000; 11: 185–192.
  • 19.Nout R.A., Smit V.T., Putter H. i wsp.; PORTEC Study Group: Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiothera­py for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 816–823.
  • 20.Frumovitz M., Singh D.K., Meyer L. i wsp.: Predictors of final histology in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004; 95: 463–468.
  • 21.Podratz K.C., Mariani A., Webb M.J.: Staging and therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 1998; 70: 163–164.
  • 22.Mohan D.S., Samuels M.A., Selim M.A. i wsp.: Long-term outcomes of therapeutic pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 1998; 70: 165–171.
  • 23.Bristow R.E., Zerbe M.J., Rosenshein N.B. i wsp.: Stage IVB endometrial carcinoma: the role of cytoreductive surgery and determinants of survival. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 78: 85–91.
  • 24.Soliman P.T., Frumovitz M., Spannuth W. i wsp.: Lymph­adenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 119: 291–294.
  • 25.Carierro C., Nappi L., Melilli G.A. i wsp.: Prognostic factors and selective use of vaginal hysterectomy in early stage endometrial carcinoma. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 1999; 20: 408–411.
  • 26.Trimble E.L.: Saving the lymph nodes. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2000; 21: 13–16.
  • 27.Trimble E.L., Kosary C., Park R.C.: Lymph node sampling and survival in endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 1998; 71: 340–343.
  • 28.ASTEC study group; Kitchener H., Swart A.M., Qian Q. i wsp.: Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endo­metrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lan­cet 2009; 373: 125–136.
  • 29.Kim H.S., Suh D.H., Kim M.K. i wsp.: Systematic lymph­adenectomy for survival in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 42: 405–412.
  • 30.Forde G.K., Carlson J.W., Downey G.O. i wsp.: A quality pro­cess study of lymph node evaluation in endometrial cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2011; 30: 335–339.
  • 31.Mariani A., Webb M.J., Keeney G.L. i wsp.: Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 182: 1506–1519.
  • 32.Creutzberg C.L., van Putten W.L.J., Koper P.C.M. i wsp.: Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 2000; 355: 1404–1411.
  • 33.Straughn J.M., Kleinberg M.J., Leath C.A. i wsp.: Conservative management of endometrial carcinoma with myometrial inva­sion after surgical staging. Gynecol. Oncol. 2001; 80: 275–279.
  • 34.Selvaggi L., Loizzi V., Lorusso M. i wsp.: Lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in endometrial carcinoma: a ret­rospective analysis of 410 patients. J. Gynecol. Surg. 2010; 26: 93–98.
  • 35.Zuurendonk L.D., Smit R.A., Mol B.W.J. i wsp.: Routine pelvic lymphadenectomy in apparently early stage endometrial can­cer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2006; 32: 450–454.
  • 36.Dowdy S.C., Mariani A.: Lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: when, not if. Lancet 2010; 375: 1138–1140.
  • 37.Yokoyama Y., Maruyama H., Sato S., Saito Y.: Indispensabil­ity of pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancers. Gynecol. Oncol. 1997; 64: 411–417.
  • 38.Abu-Rustum N.R., Gomez J.D., Alektiar K.M. i wsp.: The inci­dence of isolated paraaortic nodal metastasis in surgically staged endometrial cancer patients with negative pelvic lymph nodes. Gynecol. Oncol. 2009; 115: 236–238.
  • 39.Turan T., Hizli D., Sarici S. i wsp.: Is it possible to predict para-aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011; 158: 274–279.
  • 40.Smith D.C., Macdonald O.K., Lee C.M., Gaffney D.K.: Sur­vival impact of lymph node dissection in endometrial adeno­carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results anal­ysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2008; 18: 255–261.
  • 41.Ueda Y., Okazawa M., Enomoto T. i wsp.: Dissection of unsus­picious para-aortic lymph nodes does not improve prognosis of advanced endometrial carcinoma with intra- or extra-abdominal metastasis. Anticancer Res. 2011; 31: 4513–4517.
  • 42.Pityński K., Basta A., Opławski M. i wsp.: Znakowanie węzłów limfatycznych i poszukiwanie węzła wartowniczego w raku szyjki macicy, raku endometrium i raku sromu. Ginekol. Pol. 2003; 74: 830–835.
  • 43.Kuehn T., Kreienberg R.: Sentinel node mapping in gynecolog­ic malignancies. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2000; 264: 113–115.
  • 44.Ballester M., Dubernard G., Lécuru F. i wsp.: Detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel-node biopsy in early stage endo­metrial cancer: a prospective multicentre study (SENTI-ENDO). Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12: 469–476.
  • 45.Frumovitz M., Bodurka D.C., Broaddus R.R. i wsp.: Lymphat­ic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 104: 100–103.
  • 46.Delaloye J.F., Pampallona S., Chardonnens E. i wsp.: Intra­operative lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy using hysteroscopy in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 106: 89–93.
  • 47.Delpech Y., Coutant C., Darai E., Barranger E.: Sentinel lymph node evaluation in endometrial cancer and the impor­tance of micrometastases. Surg. Oncol. 2008; 17: 237–245.
  • 48.Petersen R.W., Quinlivan J.A., Casper G.R., Nicklin J.L.: Endometrial adenocarcinoma – presenting pathology is a poor guide to surgical management. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 40: 191–194.
  • 49.Eltabbakh G.H., Shamonki M.I., Moody J.M., Garafano L.L.: Hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer: lap­aroscopy or laparotomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 78: 329–335.
  • 50.Eltabbakh G.H., Shamonki M.I., Moody J.M., Garafano L.L.: Laparoscopy as the primary modality for the treatment of women with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2001; 91: 378–387.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-4d57094a-f137-45e1-abf6-28361158c2d3
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.