Saltar al contenido
República del Perú · Observatorio de la producción científica universitaria
OApol.org Observatorio de Inteligencia Científica Universitaria del Perú
OApol.org
Inicio Universidades Publicaciones Investigadores
Repositorios
Tesis y trabajos académicosRevistas
Indicadores
Ranking trimestralRanking por carreraObjetivos de Desarrollo SostenibleReporte OCDERed neuronal 3D
Acerca
MetodologíaPrivacidad

Stratification of lymph node metastases as macrometastases, micrometastases, or isolated tumor cells has no clinical implication in patients with cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN project

Dostálek L.; Benešová K.; Klát J.; Kim S.H.; Falconer H.; Kostun J.; dos Reis R.; Zapardiel I.; Landoni F.; Ortiz D.I.; van Lonkhuijzen L.R.C.W.; Lopez A.; Odetto D.; Borčinová M.; Jarkovsky J.; Salehi S.; Němejcová K.; Bajsová S.; Park K.J.; Javůrková V.; Abu-Rustum N.R.; Dundr P.; Cibula D. · Gynecologic Oncology (2023) · DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.11.017

Resumen

Background: In cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis. Methods: We analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01–1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges. Results: LN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group. Conclusions: In cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.