Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

, Volume 144, Issue 10, pp 2019–2027 | Cite as

Is there a benefit of lymphadenectomy for overall and recurrence-free survival in type I FIGO IB G1-2 endometrial carcinoma? A retrospective population-based cohort analysis

  • Thomas Papathemelis
  • Dunja Hassas
  • Michael Gerken
  • Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke
  • Anton Scharl
  • Michael P. Lux
  • Mathias W. Beckmann
  • Sophia Scharl
Original Article – Clinical Oncology



The recommended therapy for type I FIGO IB endometrial cancer (EC) is hysterectomy and adnexectomy, but the therapeutic benefits of additional pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection (LND) are still under discussion. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated overall survival (OAS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) among patients with type I FIGO IB EC who did undergo systematic or elective lymphadenectomy or none at all.


We selected 299 individuals from the database of the German Tumor Centre Regensburg who were diagnosed between 1998 and 2015 with endometrial adenocarcinoma of the uterus type I FIGO IB. We applied multivariable Cox regression to the selected patient data and estimated hazard ratios for OAS and RFS against the performed intervention. Further, we carried out risk adjustments with respect to clinicopathological parameters, and performed model selection using conditional stepwise forward selection.


We observed significant benefits of LND in the unadjusted survival analysis; however, we did not confirm this effect in multivariable regression analysis upon risk adjustment. In this case, hazard ratio (HR) for OAS in patients without LND versus patients with LND is reduced to 1.214 (95% CI 0.771–1.911; p = 0.402), HR for RFS is 1.059 (95% CI 0.689–1.626; p = 0.795). Similarly, we were also able to eliminate the statistical benefit of systematic versus elective LND by risk adjustment.


In contrast to previous observations in high-grade EC, our study provides compelling evidence that LND, in particular systematic lymphadenectomy, is not beneficial for patients with type I FIGO IB EC in terms of long-term OAS and RFS.


Endometrial cancer Lymphadenectomy Outcome Overall survival Recurrence 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

432_2018_2715_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)


  1. Achouri A, Huchon C, Bats AS, Bensaid C, Nos C, Lécuru F (2013) Complications of lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(1):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen SL, Terry DF, Wilcox MA, Babineau T, Malek K, Perls TT (2005) Cancer in the oldest old. Mech Ageing Dev 126(2):263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedetti-Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Alberto Lissoni A, Signorelli M, Scambia G et al (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(23):1707–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bokhman JV (1983) Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 15(1):10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie (1987) CR a new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cragun JM, Havrilesky LJ, Calingaert B, Synan I, Secord AA, Soper JT et al (2005) Retrospective analysis of selective LND in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(16):3668–3675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer DW (2012) The epidemiology of endometrial and ovarian cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 26(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creasman W (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creasman W, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 60(8 suppl):2035–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denschlag D, Ulrich U, Emons G (2010) The diagnosis and treatment of endometrial cancer: progress and controversies. Dtsch Ärzteblatt Int 108(34–35):571–577Google Scholar
  11. Endometrial Cancer Lymphadenectomy Trial (ECLAT) (2008) Accessed 01 Apr 2018
  12. Frost JA, Webster KE, Bryant A, Morrison J (2017) Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD007585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujimoto T, Nanjyo H, Nakamura A, Yokoyama Y, Takano T, Shoji T et al (2007) Para-aortic lymphadenectomy may improve disease-related survival in patients with multipositive pelvic lymph node stage IIIc endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 107(2):253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottwald L (2010) Long-term survival of endometrioid endometrial cancer patients. Arch Med Sci 6(6):937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK (2009) Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet 373(9658):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2018) Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der Patientinnen mit Endometriumkarzinom Leitlinienreport 0.1, 2017, AWMF Registernummer: 032/034-OL. Accessed 28 Mar 2018
  17. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Galli L, Podratz KC (2000) Potential therapeutic role of para-aortic LND in node-positive endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 76(3):348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. May K, Bryant A, Dickinson HO, Kehoe S, Morrison J (2010) Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD007585Google Scholar
  19. Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E (2016) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 387(10023):1094–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papathemelis (2017) Survival benefit of pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in high-grade endometrial carcinoma: a retrospective population-based cohort analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143(12):2555–2562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rani PR, Begum J, Reddy KS (2017) Controversies in the management of early endometrial carcinoma: an update. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 6(6):2124–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saso S, Chatterjee J, Georgiou E, Ditri AM, Smith JR, Ghaem- Maghami S (2011) Endometrial cancer. BMJ 343(2):d3954–d3954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thaker PH, Sood AK (2017) Molecular oncology in gynecologic cancer. In: Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, Katz VL (eds) Comprehensive gynecology (6th edn). Mosby, St. Louis. ISBN 978-0-323-06986-1Google Scholar
  24. Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N (2010) Survival effect of para-aortic LND in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 375(9721):1165–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tumorzentrum Regensburg (2018) Accessed 01 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Frauenklinik, Klinikum St. Marien AmbergAmbergGermany
  2. 2.Tumorzentrum RegensburgInstitut für Qualitätssicherung und Versorgungsforschung der Universität RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Gynäkologisches Universitäts-Krebszentrum Franken, Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMNFriedrich-AlexanderUniversität ErlangenErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Klinik und Poliklinik für RadioOnkologie und Strahlentherapie, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations