Impact of Lymphadenectomy on Survival of Patients with Serous Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A French National Multicenter Study (FRANCOGYN)

Role of systematic lymphadenectomy at the time of interval debulking surgery for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma who achieved complete gross resection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of systematic lymphadenectomy at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma who achieved complete gross resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer DataBase was accessed, and patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery and achieved complete gross resection were identified. Patients who did not undergo lymphadenectomy and those who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy (defined as at least 20 lymph nodes removed) were selected for further analysis. Median overall survival was compared with the log-rank test and controlled for a priori selected confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 1060 patients were identified. Systematic lymphadenectomy was performed for 125 (11.8%) patients with a median of 29 lymph nodes (range 20-72) removed. Rate of lymph node metastasis was 62.4%. Patients who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy had higher rate of unplanned readmission (8.9% vs 1.6%, p<0.001), and median hospital stay (6 vs 4 days, p<0.001). Median overall survival for patients who did and did not undergo systematic lymphadenectomy was 44.2 and 40.4 months, respectively, p=0.40. After controlling for confounders, performance of systematic lymphadenectomy was not associated with better survival (HR=0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19).

CONCLUSION

Systematic lymphadenectomy is rarely performed at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery and not associated with a survival benefit for patients who achieved complete gross resection.

Systematic lymph node dissection during interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) at the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC).

Methods

Systematic literature review of studies including AEOC patients undergoing SyLND versus selective lymph node dissection (SeLND) or no lymph node dissection (NoLND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and hospital stay.

Results

Nine retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1,660 patients: 827 (49.8%) SyLND, 490 (29.5%) SeLND, and 343 (20.7%) NoLND. The pooled estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were, respectively, 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.65–1.20; p=0.43) and 0.80 (95% CI=0.50–1.30; p=0.37). The pooled estimated odds ratios (ORs) for severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, and blood transfusions were, respectively, 1.83 (95% CI=1.19–2.82; p=0.006), 3.38 (95% CI=1.71–6.70; p<0.001), 7.23 (95% CI=3.40–15.36; p<0.0001), and 1.22 (95% CI=0.50–2.96; p=0.67).

Conclusion

Despite the heterogeneity in the study designs, SyLND after NACT failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in PFS and OS and resulted in a higher risk of severe postoperative complications.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022303577

Systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) during interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival rates. The risk of postoperative complications was higher when SyLND was performed. The role of imaging for nodal evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains a matter of debate. Further high-quality evidence is required before definitively omitting SyLND during IDS.

Results of a 2021 French National Survey on Management of Patients with Advanced Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess current French practices in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHOD

a 58-question electronic survey was distributed anonymously to the members of the SFOG (French Society of Gynaecological Oncology), GINECO-ARCAGY (National Investigators Group for Ovarian and Breast Cancer Studies in France) and FRANCOGYN (French research group in oncological and gynaecological surgery). Initial diagnostic workup and staging, pathological data, surgical data, treatments and follow-up strategies were assessed.

RESULTS

a total of 107 participants responded to emailed surveys. Most of the respondents were obstetrician-gynaecologists (37.4%), surgical oncologists (34.6%) and medical oncologists (17.8%). According to most (76.8%) participants, less than 50% of patients were eligible for primary debulking surgery (PDS). The LION study criteria were applied in 69.5% of cases during PDS and 39% after chemotherapy. The timing of BRCA testing was very heterogeneous and ranged from 1 to 6 months. The use of bevacizumab as an adjuvant schedule was lower in cases of no residual disease (for 54.5% of respondents) compared to cases of residual disease (for 63.6% of respondents). In cases of BRCA1-2 mutations, olaparib was given by 75.8-84.8% of respondents, whereas niraparib was given in cases of BRCA wild-type diseases.

CONCLUSION

this survey provides an extensive and a unique review of current French practices in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in 2021.

Role of Lymphadenectomy During Interval Debulking Surgery Performed After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Objective

The role of lymphadenectomy in interval debulking surgery (IDS) performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in advanced ovarian cancer remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the clinical significance of lymphadenectomy in IDS.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the data of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent NACT followed by IDS.

Results

In 303 patients receiving NACT-IDS, lymphadenectomy was performed in 127 (41.9%) patients. One hundred and sixty-three (53.8%) patients achieved no gross residual disease (NGRD), and 69 (22.8%) had residual disease < 1 cm, whereas 71 (23.4%) had residual disease ≥ 1cm. No significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was observed between the lymphadenectomy group and the no lymphadenectomy group in patients with NGRD, residual disease < 1 cm, and residual disease ≥ 1 cm, respectively. The proportions of pelvic, para-aortic and distant lymph node recurrence were 7.9% (10/127), 4.7% (6/127) and 5.5% (7/127) in the lymphadenectomy group, compared with 5.7% (10/176, P = 0.448), 4.5% (8/176, P = 0.942) and 5.1% (9/176, P = 0.878), respectively, in no lymphadenectomy group. Multivariate analysis identified residual disease ≥ 1 cm [hazard ratios (HR), 4.094; P = 0.008] and elevated CA125 levels after 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 2.883; P = 0.004) were negative predictors for OS.

Conclusion

Lymphadenectomy may have no therapeutic value in patients with advanced ovarian cancer underwent NACT-IDS. Our findings may help to better the therapeutic strategy for advanced ovarian cancer. More clinical trials are warranted to further clarify the real role of lymphadenectomy in IDS.

Clinical Impact of Lymphadenectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Review of Available Data

Recent robust data allow for omitting lymph node dissection for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and without any suspicion of lymph node metastases, without compromising recurrence-free survival (RFS), nor overall survival (OS), in the setting of primary surgical treatment. Evidence supporting the same postulate for patients undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is lacking. Throughout a systematic literature review, the aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of lymph node dissection in patients undergoing surgery for advanced-stage EOC after NACT. A total of 1094 patients, included in six retrospective series, underwent either systematic, selective or no lymph node dissection. Only one study reveals a positive effect of lymphadenectomy on OS, and two on RFS. The four remaining series fail to demonstrate any beneficial effect on survival, neither for RFS nor OS. All of them highlight the higher peri- and post-operative complication rate associated with systematic lymph node dissection. Despite heterogeneity in the design of the studies included, there seems to be a trend showing no improvement on OS for systematic lymph node dissection in node negative patients. A well-conducted prospective trial is mandatory to evaluate this matter.