Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer patients: a comprehensive analysis of rates, survival outcomes, and risk factors through systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ling Han, Yali Chen, Ai Zheng, Xin Tan, Hengxi Chen
Author Information
  1. Ling Han: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  2. Yali Chen: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  3. Ai Zheng: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  4. Xin Tan: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  5. Hengxi Chen: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to explore the incidence of different metastatic patterns in paraaortic lymph nodes and their corresponding survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer, as well as to identify the associated risk factors of such metastasis.
Material and methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from inception to February 10, 2024.The analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.3.
Results: A total of 47 studies involving 33,425 endometrial cancer patients were analyzed. Meta-analysis results revealed that the rate of isolated paraaortic lymph node metastasis, where pelvic lymph nodes were negative but paraaortic lymph nodes were positive (PLN-PAN+), was found to be 2.58% (95% CI 0.0195-0.0329). The rates for PLN+PAN- and PLN+PAN+ were notably higher at 8.54% (95% CI 0.0642-0.1092) and 8.37% (95% CI 0.0613-0.1090), respectively. For clinical stage I EC, the occurrence rate was 5.92% for PLN+PAN- (95% CI 0.0258-0.1032), 1.00% for PLN-PAN+ (95% CI 0.0081-0.0120), and 2.99% for PLN+PAN+ (95% CI 0.0188-0.0431). The survival outcomes indicate a decreasing trend from the PLN-PAN+ and PLN+PAN- groups to the PLN+PAN+ group. Additionally, the survival outcomes of patients with isolated paraaortic lymph node metastasis appear to be comparable to, or not inferior to, those of the PLN+PAN- group. The analysis indicated that pelvic lymph node metastasis (OR 16.72, 95% CI 10.03-27.86), myometrial invasion ���50% (OR 5.18, 95% CI 3.09-8.69), lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) (OR 3.46, 95% CI 2.49-4.81), cervical invasion (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.09-7.66), and non-endometrioid cancer (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.17-4.86) were risk factors for paraaortic lymph node metastasis.
Conclusions: Isolated paraaortic lymph node metastasis, though relatively rare, can still occur even in clinical stage I endometrial cancer. The survival outcomes of patients with isolated paraaortic lymph node metastasis appear to be comparable to, or not inferior to, those of the PLN+PAN- group. Even in patients with negative pelvic lymph nodes, careful consideration should be given to the possibility of paraaortic lymph node metastasis, especially in those with high-risk factors.
Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024503959.

Keywords

References

  1. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Sep;28(5):e59 [PMID: 28657221]
  2. Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Dec;51(3):345-8 [PMID: 8112643]
  3. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Oct;158(2):274-9 [PMID: 21664758]
  4. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Nov;242:43-46 [PMID: 31557556]
  5. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Feb;34(2):177-81 [PMID: 24456443]
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34 [PMID: 19631507]
  7. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Aug;21(8):2755-61 [PMID: 24705578]
  8. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Aug;150(2):163-168 [PMID: 32433783]
  9. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2024 Aug 5;34(8):1211-1216 [PMID: 38955372]
  10. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):459-476.e10 [PMID: 27871836]
  11. Int J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;22(5):937-944 [PMID: 28523533]
  12. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020 Jun 13;12:1758835920933036 [PMID: 32587635]
  13. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Nov 24;102(47):e36100 [PMID: 38013262]
  14. Gynecol Oncol. 1983 Dec;16(3):319-25 [PMID: 6654176]
  15. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Oct;167(1):65-72 [PMID: 35995599]
  16. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41 [PMID: 3652025]
  17. Gynecol Oncol. 2001 Aug;82(2):375-9 [PMID: 11531298]
  18. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2009 Jul;38(7):581-6 [PMID: 19652848]
  19. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1165-72 [PMID: 20188410]
  20. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):38-43 [PMID: 24120926]
  21. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006 Mar-Apr;16(2):799-804 [PMID: 16681764]
  22. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2024 Apr 01;34(4):519-527 [PMID: 38296516]
  23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;143(3):313-318 [PMID: 30125949]
  24. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;5(2):109-14 [PMID: 25114462]
  25. Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Mar;64(3):411-7 [PMID: 9062142]
  26. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jul;28(6):1145-1152 [PMID: 29757871]
  27. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;154(1):60-64 [PMID: 31126637]
  28. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 May;24(4):697-702 [PMID: 24662132]
  29. J Surg Oncol. 2017 Aug;116(2):220-226 [PMID: 28482122]
  30. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 May;25(4):657-64 [PMID: 25647255]
  31. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 May;22(4):607-10 [PMID: 22546819]
  32. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jun;25(5):875-8 [PMID: 25774712]
  33. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Jan;18(1):58-64 [PMID: 20607418]
  34. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Mar;24(3):513-9 [PMID: 24552891]
  35. Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Jan;40(1):55-65 [PMID: 1989916]
  36. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;12(1):73-77 [PMID: 33814835]
  37. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3234-40 [PMID: 20585865]
  38. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Jun;40(6):1733-9 [PMID: 24888941]
  39. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Nov;115(2):236-8 [PMID: 19666190]
  40. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jun;9(2):204-210 [PMID: 29887702]
  41. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Mar;92(3):833-8 [PMID: 14984949]
  42. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(5):398-400 [PMID: 14584655]
  43. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):405-415 [PMID: 28566221]
  44. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Aug 1;118(2):151-4 [PMID: 20621776]
  45. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39 [PMID: 33397713]
  46. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Dec;288(6):1391-7 [PMID: 23764931]
  47. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(12):1836-41 [PMID: 9192991]
  48. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jan;25(1):81-6 [PMID: 25347094]
  49. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 [PMID: 19367689]
  50. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023 Feb;21(2):181-209 [PMID: 36791750]
  51. Gynecol Oncol. 2023 Jun;173:41-48 [PMID: 37075495]
  52. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48 [PMID: 36633525]
  53. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Dec;292(6):1321-7 [PMID: 25990476]
  54. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018 Mar 28;19(4):201-205 [PMID: 29588264]
  55. Lancet. 2022 Apr 9;399(10333):1412-1428 [PMID: 35397864]
  56. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Feb;112(2):342-7 [PMID: 19062082]
  57. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Oct 21;8:754890 [PMID: 34746191]
  58. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Apr;121(1):122-5 [PMID: 21194737]
  59. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Mar;186:63-7 [PMID: 25638600]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By