TY - JOUR
T1 - Pelvine Lymphonodektomie beim Vulvakarzinom - Wohl oder Übel?
AU - Woelber, Linn
AU - Bommert, Mareike
AU - Prieske, Katharina
AU - Fischer, Inger
AU - Zu Eulenburg, Christine
AU - Vettorazzi, Eik
AU - Harter, Philipp
AU - Jueckstock, Julia
AU - Hilpert, Felix
AU - De Gregorio, Niko
AU - Iborra, Severine
AU - Sehouli, Jalid
AU - Ignatov, Atanas
AU - Hillemanns, Peter
AU - Fuerst, Sophie
AU - Strauss, Hans Georg
AU - Baumann, Klaus
AU - Beckmann, Matthias
AU - Mustea, Alexander
AU - Meier, Werner
AU - Wimberger, Pauline
AU - Hanker, Lars
AU - Canzler, Ulrich
AU - Fehm, Tanja
AU - Luyten, Alexander
AU - Hellriegel, Martin
AU - Kosse, Jens
AU - Heiss, Christoph
AU - Hantschmann, Peer
AU - Mallmann, Peter
AU - Tanner, Berno
AU - Pfisterer, Jacobus
AU - Mahner, Sven
AU - Schmalfeldt, Barbara
AU - Jaeger, Anna
N1 - Funding Information:
The CaRE-1 study received financial support from Medac Oncology, without Medac Oncology having any influence on the study design, the evaluation and interpretation of data, or the contents of this manuscript. LW received personal fees from med update GmbH, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from medac oncology, personal fees from promedics GmbH, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, personal fees from Teva, personal fees from OmniaMed, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Greiner. MB received non-financial support from prIME Oncology, non-financial support from MSD. KP received personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSK, personal fees from Molecular health, personal fees from Gsk, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Clovis Oncology. PH received reports grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sotio, grants and personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Zai Lab, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Public funding (ASCO, DKH, DFG), personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Immunogen, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Medac, grants from Genmab. FH received personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees and other from PharmaMar, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Clovis, other from MSD. NdG received personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD. PW received grants, personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and other from MSD, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, grants, per- sonal fees and other from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and other from PharmaMar, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, grants and personal fees from TEVA, grants and personal fees from Eisai, grants, personal fees and other from Clovis, grants, personal fees and other from Tesaro. SM received grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Clovis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Medac, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Olympus, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PharmaMar, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sensor Kinesis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro. AJ received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Molecular Health, personal fees from Gsk, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Clovis Oncology, personal fees from MSD.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020. The author(s).
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12/1
Y1 - 2020/12/1
N2 - Since the publication of the updated German guideline in 2015, the recommendations for performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAE) in patients with vulvar cancer (VSCC) have changed considerably. The guideline recommends surgical lymph node staging in all patients with a higher risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. However, the current data do not allow the population at risk to be clearly defined, therefore, the indication for pelvic lymphadenectomy is still not clear. There are currently two published German patient populations who had pelvic LAE which can be used to investigate both the prognostic effect of histologically verified pelvic lymph node metastasis and the relation between inguinal and pelvic lymph node involvement. A total of 1618 patients with primary FIGO stage ≥ IB VSCC were included in the multicenter AGO CaRE-1 study (1998-2008), 70 of whom underwent pelvic LAE. During a retrospective single-center evaluation carried out at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), a total of 514 patients with primary VSCC treated between 1996-2018 were evaluated, 21 of whom underwent pelvic LAE. In both cohorts, around 80% of the patients who underwent pelvic LAE were inguinally node-positive, with a median number of three affected groin lymph nodes. There were no cases of pelvic lymph node metastasis without inguinal lymph node metastasis in either of the two cohorts. Between 33-35% of the inguinal node-positive patients also had pelvic lymph node metastasis; the median number of affected groin lymph nodes in these patients was high (> 4), and the maximum median diameter of the largest inguinal metastasis was > 40 mm in both cohorts. Pelvic lymph node staging and pelvic radiotherapy is therefore probably not necessary for the majority of node-positive patients with VSCC, as the relevant risk of pelvic lymph node involvement was primarily found in node-positive patients with high-grade disease. More, ideally prospective data collections are necessary to validate the relation between inguinal and pelvic lymph node involvement.
AB - Since the publication of the updated German guideline in 2015, the recommendations for performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAE) in patients with vulvar cancer (VSCC) have changed considerably. The guideline recommends surgical lymph node staging in all patients with a higher risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. However, the current data do not allow the population at risk to be clearly defined, therefore, the indication for pelvic lymphadenectomy is still not clear. There are currently two published German patient populations who had pelvic LAE which can be used to investigate both the prognostic effect of histologically verified pelvic lymph node metastasis and the relation between inguinal and pelvic lymph node involvement. A total of 1618 patients with primary FIGO stage ≥ IB VSCC were included in the multicenter AGO CaRE-1 study (1998-2008), 70 of whom underwent pelvic LAE. During a retrospective single-center evaluation carried out at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), a total of 514 patients with primary VSCC treated between 1996-2018 were evaluated, 21 of whom underwent pelvic LAE. In both cohorts, around 80% of the patients who underwent pelvic LAE were inguinally node-positive, with a median number of three affected groin lymph nodes. There were no cases of pelvic lymph node metastasis without inguinal lymph node metastasis in either of the two cohorts. Between 33-35% of the inguinal node-positive patients also had pelvic lymph node metastasis; the median number of affected groin lymph nodes in these patients was high (> 4), and the maximum median diameter of the largest inguinal metastasis was > 40 mm in both cohorts. Pelvic lymph node staging and pelvic radiotherapy is therefore probably not necessary for the majority of node-positive patients with VSCC, as the relevant risk of pelvic lymph node involvement was primarily found in node-positive patients with high-grade disease. More, ideally prospective data collections are necessary to validate the relation between inguinal and pelvic lymph node involvement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097433922&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1055/a-1120-0138
DO - 10.1055/a-1120-0138
M3 - Zeitschriftenaufsätze
AN - SCOPUS:85097433922
SN - 0016-5751
VL - 80
SP - 1221
EP - 1228
JO - Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
JF - Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
IS - 12
ER -