Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025
Clinical analysis of the impact of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy on the prognosis of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer (stage IA-IIA): a propensity score matching study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Jin Ha, Han Jung Woo, Choi Eun Woo, Bang Ji Hong, Shin Hee Jeong, Jang Mi-Ae, Lee Jong-Young, Choi Jeong Nam, Chang Hun Soo, Park Tae Kwann
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The role of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPAL) in completion staging surgery for early-stage (stage I-IIA) ovarian cancer (EOC) remains controversial. This study evaluates the impact of PPAL on the prognosis of EOC patients.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients with EOC (stage I-IIA) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 ratio based on age, marital status, race, tumor grade, histological type, FIGO stage, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. Post-matching overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the systematic PPAL group (pathological staging) and the non-lymphadenectomy group (clinical staging).
RESULTS: After PSM, no significant differences were observed in OS (p=0.140) and CSS (p=0.066) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that for tumor grade III patients, the pathological staging group had significantly higher OS (p=0.028) and CSS (p=0.010) than the clinical staging group. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that tumor grade III was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p=0.006) and CSS (p=0.020).
CONCLUSION: Systematic PPAL does not significantly improve survival in EOC patients. However, for tumor grade III patients, the pathological staging group demonstrates significantly better prognosis, offering a more personalized alternative to routine staging surgery, which requires further validation through prospective trials.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients with EOC (stage I-IIA) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 ratio based on age, marital status, race, tumor grade, histological type, FIGO stage, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. Post-matching overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the systematic PPAL group (pathological staging) and the non-lymphadenectomy group (clinical staging).
RESULTS: After PSM, no significant differences were observed in OS (p=0.140) and CSS (p=0.066) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that for tumor grade III patients, the pathological staging group had significantly higher OS (p=0.028) and CSS (p=0.010) than the clinical staging group. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that tumor grade III was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p=0.006) and CSS (p=0.020).
CONCLUSION: Systematic PPAL does not significantly improve survival in EOC patients. However, for tumor grade III patients, the pathological staging group demonstrates significantly better prognosis, offering a more personalized alternative to routine staging surgery, which requires further validation through prospective trials.