Role of lymphadenectomy in the management of grossly apparent advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that are related to the performance of lymph node assessment and its impact on prognosis in ovarian cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer in patients who had undergone primary surgery between 1994 and 1998. Simple statistics and univariate and multivariable analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria; lymph node assessment was performed for 93 of these patients (41%). Sixty-one patients (65.5%) underwent complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and 32 patients (34.5%) underwent a more limited lymph node sampling. In patients with residual disease >1 cm, lymph node assessment was an independent predictor of outcome. In this same subgroup, lymphadenectomy appeared to be superior to lymph node sampling (5-year overall survival, 50% (lymphadenectomy) vs 33% (lymph node sampling) vs 29% (no lymph node assessment); P = .01). Considering survival of the subgroup who underwent lymph node assessment, we observed a significantly worse outcome for those with lymphatic involvement (5-year overall survival, 31.5% [positive for nodal metastases] vs 54% [negative for nodal metastases]; P = .003). Although multiple factors were correlated with the decision to perform lymph node assessment in univariate analysis, only the surgeon (P < .001), low residual disease (P = .004), American Society of Anesthesiology 1 or 2 (P = .004), and the absence of carcinomatosis (P = .0002) were independent factors in the multivariable analysis. Further, if lymph node assessment was performed, the decision to do lymphadenectomy versus lymph node sampling was associated independently with the surgeon (P < .001), low residual disease (P < .001), and patient age of <65 years (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Removal of obviously involved lymph nodes in patients with residual disease near 1 cm and lymphadenectomy for patients with complete or near complete resection of abdominal disease appears to be justified. A lack of standard recommendation in advanced ovarian cancer results in wide variations that are based on individual preference in addition to logical factors.