The role of lymph node resection in ovarian cancer: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database
Article first published online: 18 JUN 2010
© 2010 The Authors Journal compilation © RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 117, Issue 12, pages 1451–1458, November 2010
How to Cite
Rouzier, R., Bergzoll, C., Brun, J.-L., Dubernard, G., Selle, F., Uzan, S., Pomel, C. and Daraï, E. (2010), The role of lymph node resection in ovarian cancer: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 117: 1451–1458. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02633.x
- Issue published online: 18 JUN 2010
- Article first published online: 18 JUN 2010
- Accepted 3 May 2010. Published Online 18 June 2010.
- therapeutic role
Please cite this paper as: Rouzier R, Bergzoll C, Brun J, Dubernard G, Selle F, Uzan S, Pomel C, Daraï E. The role of lymph node resection in ovarian cancer: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. BJOG 2010;117:1451–1458.
Objective The therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy on the survival in patients with ovarian cancer is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival impact of lymphadenectomy, depending on the disease stage and extent of the surgery.
Design The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) registry provided ovarian cancer data from 17 registries.
Setting Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
Population The study population comprised 49 783 patients.
Methods Survival was studied according to the number of lymph nodes removed, with stratifications on disease stage and extent of surgery.
Main outcome measure The 5-year cause-specific survival rate.
Results The median follow up for patients alive at the last follow-up visit was 39 months. The five-year cause-specific survival rates were 37, 62, and 71% for the groups in which no lymph nodes were examined, in which between one and nine nodes were examined, and in which ten or more nodes were examined, respectively (P < 0.001). Avoiding lymphadenectomy was deleterious in all stages of the disease. It was maximal for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage-II patients, but there was no significant interaction between stage and extent of lymphadenectomy. The cause-specific survival was found to significantly increase when more nodes were resected, even if the surgical procedure consisted of debulking surgery or a pelvic exenteration.
Conclusion Our study suggests a beneficial effect of lymphadenectomy in epithelial ovarian tumours, regardless of the stage of disease and extent of surgery. However, potential biases inherent to this retrospective methodology, such as staging migration, defining the extent of residual disease, and the possibility that thorough lymphadenectomy may reflect the quality of cytoreductive surgery, preclude any formal conclusions on the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy.