Advertisement

Prognostic factors for and pattern of lymph-node involvement in patients with operable cervical cancer

  • P. WidschwendterEmail author
  • W. Janni
  • C. Scholz
  • A. De Gregorio
  • N. De Gregorio
  • T W P Friedl
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Lymph node metastases significantly worsen the prognosis in cervical carcinoma. Risk factors—pathological and patient related—could select patients at high risk for lymph node involvement.

Methods

This retrospective analysis was performed by analyzing data from patients with cervical carcinoma treated between 2000 and 2017 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital Ulm.

Results

In total, 261 patients with cervical carcinoma (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA–IIB) and lymphadenectomy with at least 10 removed lymph nodes were available for analysis. Overall, 86 (33.0%) patients had lymph node metastases; 73 patients had pelvic lymph node metastases only and 13 patients had both pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastases. Lymph node metastases were found most often in the region of the external iliac artery and obturator fossa, with 57.0% and 54.7% of all 86 node-positive patients, respectively. Univariable analyses showed that presence of lymph node metastases was significantly associated with both preoperative FIGO stage (p = 0.001) and final pathological tumor stage (p < 0.001), status of resection margin (p = 0.002), lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), (p < 0.001) and vascular space invasion, (p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression model with presence of lymph node metastases (yes/no) as binary response variable, only LVSI (p < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI), (p = 0.035) remained as significant independent predictors of lymph node involvement. Subgroup analyses showed that LVSI was a significant predictive factor for lymph node involvement in patients with a preoperatively assessed FIGO stage < IIB (p < 0.001), but not for patients with a preoperatively assessed FIGO stage ≥ IIB (p = 0.122).

Conclusions

The risk factor LVSI should play an important role in deciding whether an individualized therapy concept is based on escalating or deescalating treatment. In future, the sentinel concept could reduce morbidity and at the same time provide an important prognostic assessment for a subset of cervical cancer patients.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Lymph node Prognostic factor Pattern LVSI 

Notes

Author’s contribution

PW: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. WJ: Protocol/project development, Manuscript editing. CS: Manuscript editing, Protocol development. ADG: Data collection, Manuscript editing. NDG: Data collection, Manuscript editing. TWPF: Data analysis, Statistics, Manuscript editing.

Funding

No funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This retrospective analysis was approved by the ethic committee of the university of Ulm, Germany. Number 133/16.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not possible in this study due to retrospective data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Piver MS, Chung WS (1975) Prognostic significance of cervical lesion size and pelvic node metastases in cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 46:507–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takekuma M, Kasamatsu Y, Kado N, Kuji S, Tanaka A, Takahashi N, Abe M, Hirashima Y (2017) The issues regarding postoperative adjuvant therapy and prognostic risk factors for patients with stage I–II cervical cancer: a review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 43:617–626.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, Kehoe ST, Konishi I, Olawaiye AB, Prat J, Sankaranarayanan R, Brierley J, Mutch D, Querleu D, Cibula D, Quinn M, Botha H, Sigurd L, Rice L, Ryu H-S, Ngan H, Mäenpää J, Andrijono A, Purwoto G, Maheshwari A, Bafna UD, Plante M, Natarajan J (2019) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet 145:129–135.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsunoda AT, Marnitz S, Soares Nunes J, de Cunha Andrade CEM, Scapulatempo Neto C, Blohmer J-U, Herrmann J, Kerr LM, Martus P, Schneider A, Favero G, Köhler C (2017) Incidence of histologically proven pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastases and rate of upstaging in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: results of a prospective randomized trial. Oncology 92:213–220.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000453666 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Köhler C, Mustea A, Marnitz S, Schneider A, Chiantera V, Ulrich U, Scharf J-P, Martus P, Vieira MA, Tsunoda A (2015) Perioperative morbidity and rate of upstaging after laparoscopic staging for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: results of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213:503.e1–503.e7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrandina G, Margariti PA, Smaniotto D, Petrillo M, Salerno MG, Fagotti A, Macchia G, Morganti AG, Cellini N, Scambia G (2010) Long-term analysis of clinical outcome and complications in locally advanced cervical cancer patients administered concomitant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol 119:404–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.08.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maggioni A, Benedetti Panici P, Dell’Anna T, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Pellegrino A, Rossi R, Chiari S, Campagnutta E, Greggi S, Angioli R, Manci N, Calcagno M, Scambia G, Fossati R, Floriani I, Torri V, Grassi R, Mangioni C (2006) Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. Br J Cancer 95:699–704.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603323 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N (2017) ESMO Guidelines Committee, cervical cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 28:iv72–iv83.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horn L-C, Beckmann MW, Follmann M, Koch MC, Mallmann P, Marnitz S, Schmidt D (2015) German Cancer Society (DKG), S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie des Zervixkarzinoms. Pathologe 36:585–593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-015-0114-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zigras T, Lennox G, Willows K, Covens A (2017) Early cervical cancer: current dilemmas of staging and surgery. Curr Oncol Rep 19:51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0614-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rotman M, Sedlis A, Piedmonte MR, Bundy B, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ (2006) A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Radiat Oncol 65:169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ (1999) A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 73:177–183.  https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5387 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morice P, Piovesan P, Rey A, Atallah D, Haie-Meder C, Pautier P, Sideris L, Pomel C, Duvillard P, Castaigne D (2003) Prognostic value of lymphovascular space invasion determined with hematoxylin-eosin staining in early stage cervical carcinoma: results of a multivariate analysis. Ann Oncol 14:1511–1517.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdg412 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monk BJ, Wang J, Im S, Stock RJ, Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, Berek JS, Souhami L, Grigsby PW, Gordon W, Alberts DS (2005) Gynecologic oncology group, southwest oncology group, radiation therapy oncology group, rethinking the use of radiation and chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy: a clinical–pathologic analysis of a gynecologic oncology group/southwest oncology group/radiation therapy oncology group trial. Gynecol Oncol 96:721–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.11.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uno T, Ito H, Isobe K, Kaneyasu Y, Tanaka N, Mitsuhashi A, Suzuka K, Yamazawa K, Shigematsu N, Itami J (2005) Postoperative pelvic radiotherapy for cervical cancer patients with positive parametrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol 96:335–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.09.061 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Höckel M, Horn L-C, Manthey N, Braumann U-D, Wolf U, Teichmann G, Frauenschläger K, Dornhöfer N, Einenkel J (2009) Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 10:683–692.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70100-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macdonald OK, Chen J, Dodson M, Lee CM, Gaffney DK (2009) Prognostic significance of histology and positive lymph node involvement following radical hysterectomy in carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Clin Oncol 32:411–416.  https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e31819142dc CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleming ND, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM, dos Reis R, Munsell MF, Eifel PJ, Soliman PT, Nick AM, Westin SN, Ramirez PT (2015) Significance of lymph node ratio in defining risk category in node-positive early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 136:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen Y, Zhang L, Tian J, Fu X, Ren X, Hao Q (2013) Significance of the absolute number and ratio of metastatic lymph nodes in predicting postoperative survival for the international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage IA2 to IIA cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 23:157–163.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182778bcf CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kwon J, Eom K-Y, Kim YS, Park W, Chun M, Lee J, Kim YB, Yoon WS, Kim JH, Choi JH, Chang SK, Jeong BK, Lee SH, Cha J (2018) The prognostic impact of the number of metastatic lymph nodes and a new prognostic scoring system for recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer with high risk factors: a multicenter cohort study (KROG 15-04). Cancer Res Treat 50:964–974.  https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.346 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsuo K, Grubbs BH, Mikami M (2018) Quality and quantity metrics of pelvic lymph node metastasis and risk of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in stage IB–IIB cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 29:e10.  https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e10 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie Meder C, Köhler C, Landoni F, Lax S, Lindegaard JC, Mahantshetty U, Mathevet P, McCluggage WG, McCormack M, Naik R, Nout R, Pignata S, Ponce J, Querleu D, Raspagliesi F, Rodolakis A, Tamussino K, Wimberger P, Raspollini MR (2018) The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 28:641–655.  https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000001216 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grigsby PW, Heydon K, Mutch DG, Kim RY, Eifel P (2001) Long-term follow-up of RTOG 92-10: cervical cancer with positive para-aortic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:982–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mangler M, Zech N, Schneider A, Köhler C, Marnitz S (2013) Aspects of therapy for cervical cancer in Germany 2012: results from a survey of German Gynaecological Hospitals. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73:227–238.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328302 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minig L, Patrono MG, Romero N, Rodríguez Moreno JF, Garcia-Donas J (2014) Different strategies of treatment for uterine cervical carcinoma stage IB2–IIB. World J Clin Oncol 5:86.  https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v5.i2.86 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li X, Yin Y, Sheng X, Han X, Sun L, Lu C, Wang X (2015) Distribution pattern of lymph node metastases and its implication in individualized radiotherapeutic clinical target volume delineation of regional lymph nodes in patients with stage IA to IIA cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol 10:40.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0352-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N, Hareyama H, Takeda M, Yamamoto R, Fujimoto T, Oikawa M, Fujino T, Fujimoto S (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marnitz S, Köhler C, Bongardt S, Braig U, Hertel H, Schneider A (2006) German Association of Gynecologic Oncologists (AGO), topographic distribution of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 103:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.01.061 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee J-M, Lee K-B, Lee S-K, Park C-Y (2007) Pattern of lymph node metastasis and the optimal extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33:288–293.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00526.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Takeshita S, Todo Y, Okamoto K, Sudo S, Yamashiro K, Kato H (2016) Incidence of metastasis in circumflex iliac nodes distal to the external iliac nodes in cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 27:e42.  https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e42 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takeda N, Sakuragi N, Takeda M, Okamoto K, Kuwabara M, Negishi H, Oikawa M, Yamamoto R, Yamada H, Fujimoto S (2002) Multivariate analysis of histopathologic prognostic factors for invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:1144–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, Sevin BU, Creasman WT, Major F (1990) Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 38:352–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ryu S-Y, Park S-I, Nam B-H, Cho C-K, Kim K, Kim B-J, Kim M-H, Choi S-C, Lee E-D, Lee K-H (2011) Is adjuvant chemoradiotherapy overtreatment in cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk factors? Int J Radiat Oncol 79:794–799.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith B, McCann GA, Phillips G, Backes FJ, O’Malley DM, Cohn DE, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ, Salani R (2017) Less radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: can conization specimens help identify patients at low risk for parametrial involvement? Gynecol Oncol 144:290–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bidus MA, Caffrey AS, You WB, Amezcua CA, Chernofsky MR, Barner R, Seidman J, Rose GS (2008) Cervical biopsy and excision procedure specimens lack sufficient predictive value for lymph-vascular space invasion seen at hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:151.e1–151.e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cibula D, McCluggage WG (2019) Sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in cervical cancer: current limitations and unanswered questions. Gynecol Oncol 152:202–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations