-
Surgery Sep 2014The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended...
Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).
BACKGROUND
The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy.
METHODS
During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience.
RESULTS
The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive.
CONCLUSION
Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 25061003
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010 and updated in Issue 9, 2015. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010 and updated in Issue 9, 2015. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who before surgery are thought to have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short-term and long-term sequelae. Therefore, it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to June 2009 for the original review, updated the search to June 2015 for the last updated version and further extended the search to March 2017 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
978 unique references were identified via the search strategy. All but 50 were excluded by title and abstract screening. Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, or completeness of outcome reporting.Results of the meta-analysis remained unchanged from the previous versions of this review and indicated no differences in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate-quality evidence).We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.
Topics: Adult; Disease-Free Survival; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Lymphedema; Lymphocele; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28968482
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub4 -
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular... Oct 2018Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Surgery plays an important role in the treatment strategies for esophageal cancer....
Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Surgery plays an important role in the treatment strategies for esophageal cancer. Recent advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management have dramatically improved the mortality rate; however, esophagectomy remains a highly invasive procedure that can lead to severe postoperative complications. Future advances in thoracoscopic surgery with the development of surgical endoscopy systems such as three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems with a 4K ultra high-definition camera or two-dimensional (2D) imaging systems with an 8K camera, which is expected to provide 3D-like visual sensation, will enable us to further understand the microscopic anatomy of the thoracic cavity and mediastinum, and to perform delicate surgical procedures that enable minimally invasive esophagectomy with mediastinal lymphadenectomy. A robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy is attractive for surgeons and may be beneficial to esophageal cancer patients. Preoperative simulation and intraoperative real-time navigation are expected to further help surgeons safely perform esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy. Reduction of the lymphadenectomy field and setting of lymphadenectomy areas with highest priority may be feasible when sentinel node (SN) navigation is appropriately performed in cN0 early-stage esophageal cancer. These technical advances are expected to decrease the morbidity and mortality rate of surgery for esophageal cancer and hopefully improve oncological outcomes.
Topics: Diffusion of Innovation; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Forecasting; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29962387
DOI: 10.5761/atcs.ed.18-00126 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Nov 2014The use of minimally invasive surgery has become widely accepted in many gastrointestinal fields, even in patients with malignancy. However, performing laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
The use of minimally invasive surgery has become widely accepted in many gastrointestinal fields, even in patients with malignancy. However, performing laparoscopic resection for the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is still not universally accepted as an alternative approach to open surgery, and only a limited number of such procedures have been reported due to the difficulty of performing oncologic resection and the lack of consensus regarding the adequacy of this approach. Laparoscopy was initially limited to staging, biopsy and palliation. Recent technological developments and improvements in endoscopic procedures have greatly expanded the applications of laparoscopic liver resection and lymphadenectomy, and some reports have described the use of laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma as being feasible and safe in highly selected cases, with the ability to obtain an adequate surgical margin. However, the benefits of major laparoscopic surgery have yet to be conclusively proven, and carefully selecting patients is essential for successfully performing this procedure.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Palliative Care; Patient Selection; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25386064
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i41.15153 -
Impact of lymphadenectomy on short- and long-term complications in patients with endometrial cancer.Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Sep 2022Early endometrial cancer is primarily treated surgically via hysterectomy, adenectomy and, depending on tumor stage and subtype, lymphadenectomy. Systematic lymph node...
INTRODUCTION
Early endometrial cancer is primarily treated surgically via hysterectomy, adenectomy and, depending on tumor stage and subtype, lymphadenectomy. Systematic lymph node dissection is known to cause surgical complications. The aim of the present study was to investigate morbidity and mortality rates associated with lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent surgery in a routine clinical setting.
METHODS
We collected data from 232 patients who were operated for endometrial carcinoma between 2006 and 2018 at the University of Lubeck, Germany. Surgical complications were viewed in relation to surgical risk factors. Additionally, a questionnaire concerning long-term lymphatic complications and survival was completed. Survival was compared between patients who underwent lymphadenectomy (group I) and those who did not (group II).
RESULTS
Patients in group I needed revision surgery significantly more often due to postoperative complications (such as lymphoceles) compared to those in group II (p = 0.01). The results indicate more serious complications in patients who underwent a systematic lymphadenectomy and in those with lymph node metastases. 15% of patients who underwent a systematic lymphadenectomy had lymph node metastases. Recurrences occurred in 12.5% of cases and were significantly more frequent in patients who had undergone a lymphadenectomy, even if the lymph nodes were negative (p = 0.02). A comparison of survival data during the follow-up period revealed no significant difference. The study highlighted the need for a better preoperative risk stratification and the avoidance of lymphadenectomy for surgical staging alone.
Topics: Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Lymphocele; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 35038040
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06396-5 -
Updates in Surgery Jun 2018The objective of this study is to describe the compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Radical partial or total gastrectomy with modified D2... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study is to describe the compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Radical partial or total gastrectomy with modified D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard of care for locally advanced gastric cancer. It is unclear whether compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy in laparoscopy is comparable to that in open surgery. A review of the literature was performed and results are described in a descriptive review. Available randomized trials are mostly performed for early gastric cancer, for which formal D2 lymphadenectomy is usually not required. Most trials report no differences in number of retrieved lymph nodes between open and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Only one trial used adherence to D2 lymphadenectomy as primary outcome parameter, and found no difference between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Results from randomized trials in advanced gastric cancer are awaited. In the meantime, the laparoscopic approach can be used in experienced centers.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastrectomy; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Standard of Care; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29926307
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-018-0553-1 -
Surgical Endoscopy Feb 2023Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the rates of recurrence in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Different procedures for a radical right colectomy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the rates of recurrence in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Different procedures for a radical right colectomy (RRC), including extended D3 lymphadenectomy, complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation have been associated with survival benefits by some authors, but results are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to assess the variability in definition and reporting of RRC, which might be responsible for significant differences in outcome evaluation.
METHODS
PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review to identify the definitions of RRC. Primary aims were to identify surgical steps and different nomenclature for RRC. Secondary aims were description of heterogeneity and overlap among different RRC techniques.
RESULTS
Ninety-nine articles satisfied inclusion criteria. Eight surgical steps were identified and recorded as specific to RRC: Central arterial ligation was described in 100% of the included studies; preservation of mesocolic integrity in 73% and dissection along the SMV plane in 67%. Other surgical steps were inconstantly reported. Six differently named techniques for RRC have been identified. There were 35 definitions for the 6 techniques and 40% of these were used to identify more than one technique.
CONCLUSIONS
The only universally adopted surgical step for RRC is central arterial ligation. There is great heterogeneity and consistent overlap among definitions of all RRC techniques. This is likely to jeopardise the interpretation of the outcomes of studies on the topic. Consistent use of definitions and reporting of procedures are needed to obtain reliable conclusions in future trials. PROSPERO CRD42021241650.
Topics: Humans; Colonic Neoplasms; Lymph Node Excision; Dissection; Ligation; Colectomy; Mesocolon; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36097099
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09548-5 -
Balkan Medical Journal Jan 2017Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death. It requires multimodal treatment and surgery is the most effective treatment modality. Radical... (Review)
Review
Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death. It requires multimodal treatment and surgery is the most effective treatment modality. Radical surgery includes total or subtotal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection. The extent of lymphadenectomy still remains controversial. Eastern surgeons have performed D2 or more extended lymphadenectomy while their Western colleagues have performed more limited lymph node dissection. However, the trend has been changing in favour of D2 lymph node dissection in both hemispheres. Currently, D2 is the recommended type of lymphadenectomy in experienced centres in the west. In Japan, D2 lymph node dissection is the standard surgical approach. More extensive lymphadenectomy than D2 has not been found to be associated with improved survival and generally is not performed. Bursectomy and splenectomy are additional controversial issues in surgical performance, and trends regarding them will be discussed. The performance of bursectomy is controversial and there is no clear evidence of its clinical benefit. However, a trend toward better survival in patients with serosal invasion has been reported. Routine splenectomy as a part of lymph node dissection has largely been abandoned, although splenectomy is recommended in selected cases. Minimally invasive surgery has gained wide popularity and indications for minimally invasive procedures have been expanding due to increasing experience and improving technology. Neoadjuvant therapy has been shown to have beneficial effects and seems necessary to provide a survival benefit. Diagnostic laparoscopy should be kept in mind prior to treatment.
Topics: Bursa, Synovial; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Endoscopy; Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Splenectomy; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28251018
DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.2015.1461 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2022Surgery for gastric cancer is a complex procedure and lymphadenectomy is often mandatory. Postoperative mortality and morbidity after curative gastric cancer surgery is...
BACKGROUND
Surgery for gastric cancer is a complex procedure and lymphadenectomy is often mandatory. Postoperative mortality and morbidity after curative gastric cancer surgery is not insignificant.
AIM
To evaluate the factors determining mortality and morbidity in a population of patients undergoing R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of clinical data and pathological characteristics (age, sex, primary site of the tumor, Lauren histotype, number of positive lymph nodes resected, number of negative lymph nodes resected, and depth of invasion as defined by the standard nomenclature) was conducted in patients with gastric cancer. For each patient we calculated the Kattan's score. We arbitrarily divided the study population of patients into two groups based on the nomogram score (< 100 points or ≥ 100 points). Prespecified subgroups in these analyses were defined according to age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and number of lymph nodes retrieved (≤ 35 lymph nodes or > 35 lymph nodes). Uni- and multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological findings were performed to identify the factors affecting postoperative mortality and morbidity.
RESULTS
One-hundred and eighty-six patients underwent a curative R0 resection with D2 lymphadenectomy. Perioperative mortality rate was 3.8% (7 patients); a higher mortality rate was observed in patients aged > 65 years ( = 0.002) and in N+ patients ( = 0.04). Following univariate analysis, mortality was related to a Kattan's score ≥ 100 points ( = 0.04) and the presence of advanced gastric cancer ( = 0.03). Morbidity rate was 21.0% (40 patients). Surgical complications were observed in 17 patients (9.1%). A higher incidence of morbidity was observed in patients where more than 35 lymph nodes were harvested ( = 0.0005).
CONCLUSION
Mortality and morbidity rate are higher in N+ and advanced gastric cancer patients. The removal of more than 35 lymph nodes does not lead to an increase in mortality.
Topics: Aged; Gastrectomy; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Morbidity; Retrospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 35110956
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i3.381 -
The Journal of Thoracic and... May 2022
Topics: Humans; Lymph Node Excision
PubMed: 34426007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.07.035