2
|
Taran FA, Pasternak J, Staebler A, Rohner A, Neis F, Engler T, Oberlechner E, Schönfisch B, Juhasz-Böss I, Hartkopf AD, Brucker S, Walter CB. Tumor-Free Resection Margin Distance in the Surgical Treatment of Node-Negative Squamous Cell Cancer of the Vulva Has No Impact on Survival: Analysis of a Large Patient Cohort in a Tertiary Care Center. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4110. [PMID: 37627138 PMCID: PMC10452494 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15164110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Revised: 08/11/2023] [Accepted: 08/14/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pathological tumor-free margin distance on survival in SCC patients treated with surgery alone. METHODS This retrospective study included 128 patients with node-negative disease that received no adjuvant treatment. Disease-free and overall survival were analyzed according to pathological tumor-free margin distance. RESULTS The patients were subclassified into three resection margin category groups: "1 to 3 mm" (n = 42), ">3 to 8 mm" (n = 47) or ">8 mm" (n = 39). Thirty-nine of the 128 patients (30.5%) developed recurrent disease. Median follow-up for disease-free survival (DFS) was 6.49 years (95% CI 5.16 years; 7.62 years), and median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 6.29 years (95% CI 5.45 years; 7.33 years). The 5-year DFS rate was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.79), and the 5-year OS rate was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.87). Regarding the survival outcome, there were no independent significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.300) or overall survival (p = 1.000) among patients within the three tumor-free resection margin categories. Multivariate analyses did not show any statistically significant association between tumor-free resection margin distance and recurrent disease or death, either when analyzed as a categorical variable or when analyzed as a continuous variable. CONCLUSION The present study did not show a significant impact of pathological tumor-free resection margin distance following surgery in patients with node-negative SCC of the vulva (that did not receive adjuvant treatment) on disease-free and overall survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florin Andrei Taran
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Jana Pasternak
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Annette Staebler
- Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Annika Rohner
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Felix Neis
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Tobias Engler
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Ernst Oberlechner
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Birgitt Schönfisch
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Ingolf Juhasz-Böss
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Sara Brucker
- Department of Women’s Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Woelber L, Hampl M, zu Eulenburg C, Prieske K, Hambrecht J, Fuerst S, Klapdor R, Heublein S, Gass P, Rohner A, Canzler U, Becker S, Bommert M, Bauerschlag D, Denecke A, Hanker L, Runnebaumn I, Forner DM, Schochter F, Klar M, Schwab R, Koepke M, Kalder M, Hantschmann P, Ratiu D, Denschlag D, Schroeder W, Tuschy B, Baumann K, Mustea A, Soergel P, Bronger H, Bauerschmitz G, Kosse J, Koch MC, Ignatov A, Sehouli J, Dannecker C, Mahner S, Jaeger A. Risk for Pelvic Metastasis and Role of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Node-Positive Vulvar Cancer-Results from the AGO-VOP.2 QS Vulva Study. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14020418. [PMID: 35053582 PMCID: PMC8773532 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14020418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2021] [Revised: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary In node-positive vulvar squamous cell cancer, questions of when and how to perform pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAE) as well as the optimal extent of pelvic treatment in general have been surrounded by considerable controversy. In Germany, systematic pelvic LAE is currently recommended as a staging procedure in patients at risk for pelvic nodal involvement in order to prevent morbidity caused by pelvic radiotherapy (RT) in patients without histologically-confirmed pelvic involvement. However, the population at risk for pelvic metastases remains insufficiently described, resulting in the potential overtreatment of a considerable proportion of patients with groin-positive disease. This applies to the indication to perform surgical staging but also to adjuvant RT of the pelvis without previous pelvic staging. Our study aims to describe the risk for pelvic lymph node metastasis with regard to positive groin nodes and to clarify the indication criteria for pelvic treatment in node-positive vulvar cancer. Abstract The need for pelvic treatment in patients with node-positive vulvar cancer (VSCC) and the value of pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAE) as a staging procedure to plan adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is controversial. In this retrospective, multicenter analysis, 306 patients with primary node-positive VSCC treated at 33 gynecologic oncology centers in Germany between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed. All patients received surgical staging of the groins; nodal status was as follows: 23.9% (73/306) pN1a, 23.5% (72/306) pN1b, 20.4% (62/306) pN2a/b, and 31.9% (97/306) pN2c/pN3. A total of 35.6% (109/306) received pelvic LAE; pelvic nodal involvement was observed in 18.5%. None of the patients with nodal status pN1a or pN1b and pelvic LAE showed pelvic nodal involvement. Taking only patients with nodal status ≥pN2a into account, the rate of pelvic involvement was 25%. In total, adjuvant RT was applied in 64.4% (197/306). Only half of the pelvic node-positive (N+) patients received adjuvant RT to the pelvis (50%, 10/20 patients); 41.9% (122/291 patients) experienced recurrent disease or died. In patients with histologically-confirmed pelvic metastases after LAE, distant recurrences were most frequently observed (7/20 recurrences). Conclusions: A relevant risk regarding pelvic nodal involvement was observed from nodal status pN2a and higher. Our data support the omission of pelvic treatment in patients with nodal status pN1a and pN1b.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linn Woelber
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg—Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; (K.P.); (J.H.); (A.J.)
- Colposcopy Center at the Jerusalem Hospital Hamburg, 20357 Hamburg, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Monika Hampl
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Duesseldorf, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany;
| | - Christine zu Eulenburg
- Department of Epidemiology, UMCG, Universität Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Katharina Prieske
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg—Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; (K.P.); (J.H.); (A.J.)
- Colposcopy Center at the Jerusalem Hospital Hamburg, 20357 Hamburg, Germany
- Mildred Scheel Cancer Career Center HaTriCS4, University Medical Center Hamburg—Eppendorf, 20251 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Johanna Hambrecht
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg—Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; (K.P.); (J.H.); (A.J.)
| | - Sophie Fuerst
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU—University of Munich, 80377 Munich, Germany; (S.F.); (S.M.)
| | - Ruediger Klapdor
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany;
| | - Sabine Heublein
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
| | - Paul Gass
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany;
| | - Annika Rohner
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Tuebingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany;
| | - Ulrich Canzler
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany & National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany;
| | - Sven Becker
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany;
| | - Mareike Bommert
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, 45136 Essen, Germany;
| | - Dirk Bauerschlag
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany;
| | - Agnieszka Denecke
- Department of Gynecology, Medical Center Wolfsburg, 38440 Wolfsburg, Germany;
| | - Lars Hanker
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany;
| | - Ingo Runnebaumn
- Department of Gynecology, Jena University Hospital, 07743 Jena, Germany;
| | - Dirk M. Forner
- Department of Gynecology, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Kalk, 51103 Cologne, Germany;
| | - Fabienne Schochter
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm Medical Center, 89081 Ulm, Germany;
| | - Maximilian Klar
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany;
| | - Roxana Schwab
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany;
| | - Melitta Koepke
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany; (M.K.); (C.D.)
| | - Matthias Kalder
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Marburg, 35043 Marburg, Germany;
| | - Peer Hantschmann
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Center Altoetting, 84503 Altoetting, Germany;
| | - Dominik Ratiu
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Koeln, 50937 Koeln, Germany;
| | - Dominik Denschlag
- Department of Gynecology, Hochtaunuskliniken, 61352 Bad Homburg, Germany;
| | - Willibald Schroeder
- Department of Gynecology, Medical Center Gynaecologicum Bremen, 28209 Bremen, Germany;
| | - Benjamin Tuschy
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany;
| | - Klaus Baumann
- Department of Gynecology, Medical Center Ludwigshafen, 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany;
| | - Alexander Mustea
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany;
| | - Philipp Soergel
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Minden, 32429 Minden, Germany;
| | - Holger Bronger
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany;
| | - Gerd Bauerschmitz
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany;
| | - Jens Kosse
- Department of Gynecology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, 63069 Offenbach am Main, Germany;
| | - Martin C. Koch
- Department of Gynecology, Medical Center Ansbach, 91522 Ansbach, Germany;
| | - Atanas Ignatov
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany;
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological SurgeryNOGGO e.V., Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, 13353 Berlin, Germany;
| | - Christian Dannecker
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany; (M.K.); (C.D.)
| | - Sven Mahner
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU—University of Munich, 80377 Munich, Germany; (S.F.); (S.M.)
| | - Anna Jaeger
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg—Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; (K.P.); (J.H.); (A.J.)
| |
Collapse
|