Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

E-Poster Display

857P - Long-term survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients having lymphadenectomy, sentinel node mapping followed by backup lymphadectomy and sentinel node mapping alone: A multi-institutional Italian experience

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Tumour Site

Endometrial Cancer

Presenters

Giorgio Bogani

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S551-S589. 10.1016/annonc/annonc276

Authors

G. Bogani1, F. Ghezzi2, S. Ferrero3, F. Raspagliesi4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano - Fondazione IRCCS, 20133 - Milan/IT
  • 2 Gynecologic Oncology, University of Insubria, 21000 - varese/IT
  • 3 Gynecologic Oncology, University of Genoa, Genova/IT
  • 4 Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS - Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 - Milan/IT

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 857P

Background

Sentinel node mapping (SLNM) has replaced lymphadenectomy for staging surgery in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Here, we evaluate long-term survival of three different approaches of nodal assessment in EC.

Methods

This is a multi-institutional retrospective study evaluating long-term outcomes (at least 3 years) of EC patients having lymphadenectomy, SLNM followed by lymphadenectomy and SLNM alone. In order to reduce possible confounding factors we applied a propensity-matched algorithm. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

Applying a propensity score matching algorithm we selected 180 patients having SLNM (90 SLNM vs. 90 SLNM followed by lymphadenectomy). Additionally, a control group of 180 patients having lymphadenectomy was selected using the same criteria. Overall, 10% of patients were diagnosed with positive nodes. Low volume disease was observed in 16 cases (5 micrometastasis and 11 isolated tumor cells). Patients having SLNM followed by lymphadenectomy had a higher possibility to be diagnosed with a stage IIIC disease in comparison to lymphadenectomy alone (p=0.02); while we did not observe difference in the diagnostic value of SLNM followed by lymphadenectomy and SLNM (p=0.389). Median follow-up time was 69 months (range, 7–206). The survival analysis comparing the three techniques did not show statistical differences in terms of disease-free (p=0.570, log-rank test) and overall survival (p=0.911, log-rank test). Similarly, they did not impact on survival outcomes after stratification by low, intermediate and high-risk patients.

Conclusions

Our study highlighted that SLNM provides similar long-term oncologic outcomes than lymphadenectomy. Further evidence is warranted to assess the prognostic value of low-volume disease detected by ultrastaging in patients following SLNM.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.