Skip to main content
Download PDF

Influence of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Women's Health volume 23, Article number: 474 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC).

Methods

Relevant studies were searched from four online databases. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were used to evaluate the effects of lymphadenectomy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence rates. A subgroup analysis was performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity, followed by sensitivity and publication bias assessments.

Results

Fourteen articles involving 22,178 subjects were included. Meta-analysis revealed that lymphadenectomy was significantly associated with improved OS (HR = 0.72; 95% CI:0.61, 0.84; P < 0.001), improved PFS (HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.80; P < 0.001), and reduced recurrence rates (RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.85; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that factors including area, histology, and source of the control group were significantly related to improved OS and PFS in patients with eEOC. Sensitivity analysis showed that the combined results were stable and reliable, and no significant publication bias was observed.

Conclusions

Patients with eEOC can benefit from lymphadenectomy, with improved survival outcomes (OS and PFS) and a lower recurrence rate.

Highlights

1. The clinical outcomes of eEOC patients who did and did not undergo lymphadenectomy were compared.

2. Lymphadenectomy was associated with better survival outcomes in patients with eEOC.

3. Lymphadenectomy was associated with a lower recurrence rate in patients with eEOC.

Peer Review reports

Background

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of death among gynecological malignancies [1]. Due to the lack of early screening, ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage [2]; however, approximately 30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology, defined as FIGO stages I and II), and their 5-year survival rate is markedly higher than that of patients with advanced disease [3, 4].

In early-stage EOC (eEOC), surgical staging procedures, including systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomies, are the basis for determining treatment options [5]. Lymph node dissection is helpful for accurately determining the disease stage and provides a reference for the subsequent formulation of adjuvant therapy [6]. However, the application of systematic lymphadenectomy remains controversial, particularly in its early stages. For example, Li et al. found that systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy did not significantly extend the overall survival of patients with eEOC [7]. Similar results were reported by Yoshihara et al. [8]. Conversely, Bizzarri and colleagues showed an improved 5-year disease-free survival after lymphadenectomy among eEOC [9]. Although several meta-analyses have also been designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of lymphadenectomy in patients [10,11,12,13,14], these studies predominantly focused on advanced-stage EOC; therefore, whether lymphadenectomy provides a survival benefit in patients with eEOC remains unclear.

To determine the survival value of lymphadenectomy in patients with eEOC, we performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the survival outcomes (including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and recurrence rates of lymphadenectomy in patients with eEOC.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [15]. The PRISMA checklist is shown in Table S1.

Selection strategy

Relevant studies were searched from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases without language restrictions. The search terms included the following key words: (“ovarian neoplasm” OR “ovarian cancer” OR “ovary neoplasm” OR “ovary cancer” OR “ovarian carcinoma” OR “ovary carcinoma”) AND (“lymphadenectomy” OR “lymph node dissection” OR “lymph node excision”) AND (“mortality” OR “survival” OR “death” OR “recurrence” OR “PFS” OR “OS”) up to May 16, 2022. The search strategy for each database is presented in Tables S2, S3, S4 and S5. To enroll more articles, the printout literature and reference lists of the included studies were manually searched.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies on patients diagnosed with eEOC confirmed by pathology, histology, or case records; (2) studies reporting on the survival or recurrence rate of lymphadenectomy vs. non-lymphadenectomy (NL) or comprehensive lymphadenectomy (CL, both pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy) vs. pelvic lymphadenectomy/clinical lymph node evaluation (UCL); (3) prospective/retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs); and (4) studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS, OS, or number of recurrences.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) non-research articles, such as reviews, comments, and conference summaries; (2) studies that only provided survival analysis results without reporting HRs (95% CI); and (3) duplicate studies or multiple articles reporting the same data; in this case, only the study with the most complete information was included.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two investigators independently screened the studies based on the above criteria. The following information was independently extracted by the two investigators: sample size, year of publication, name of the first author, publication year, research type, research area, recruitment time of participants, basic characteristics of the cases, histological subtype of ovarian cancer, staging, follow-up time, and clinical outcomes.

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included PCSs/RCSs from three perspectives: subject selection, comparability, and exposure [16]. In brief, studies with scores ranging from 7 to 9 points were considered high quality, 4–6 to points as moderate quality, and < 4 points as poor quality. Moreover, the quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk [17].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Stata software (version 12.0; Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). HRs with 95% CIs were used to evaluate the effect of lymphadenectomy on the prognostic survival (PFS and OS) of patients with eEOC. In addition, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were applied to assess the influence of lymphadenectomy on recurrence rates. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated using Cochran Q and I2 tests [18]. P < 0.05 and I2 > 50% suggested obvious heterogeneity among studies, and the random effects model was selected to calculate the pooled data; otherwise, a fixed effects model was selected (P ≥ 0.05, I2 ≤ 50%). To assess heterogeneity across studies, we conducted subgroup analyses based on the following factors: area (western vs. eastern), type of study (RCS vs. RCT), histology (various vs. specific), stage (≥ I vs. I only), source of the control group (NL vs. UCL), and use of multivariate analysis (yes vs. no).

Furthermore, Egger’s test and funnel charts were used to evaluate publication bias [19], and sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the stability of the results.

Results

Results of the study selection

The literature search process is illustrated in Fig. 1. In this study, 3910 studies were initially searched, including 1065, 2098, 83, and 664 articles from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, respectively. After removing duplicate documents, 2766 articles remained. Following the analysis of titles and abstracts, 2739 articles were excluded from further consideration. The remaining 27 articles were fully reviewed, and 13 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A manual search of the references in these studies did not reveal any eligible studies. Finally, 14 articles were included in this meta-analysis [5, 8, 9, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Detailed flow chart of the study selection process

Full size image

Characteristics of the included studies and quality assessment

Detailed characteristics of each study are listed in Table 1. Among the included studies, 13 had an RCS design, while only one [24] was designed as an RCT. Two studies [9, 21] enrolled a small number of patients with stage III disease, whereas the remaining studies included patients with stage I or stage I–II disease. All studies were published between 2003 and 2021 and were conducted in various countries, including China, the United States, Japan, and Italy. The sample size of each study ranged from 62 to 13,117. Finally, 22,178 subjects were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 12,167 cases in the lymphadenectomy group and 10,011 cases in the control (non-lymphadenectomy) group. Notably, there was no significant difference in age between the two groups in any of the studies, except for the study by Bizzarri et al. [9].

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

The quality of included studies was also assessed. Briefly, the NOS scores of the 13 RCS ranged from 5 to 8 points, suggesting that the methodological quality of the included RCS was moderate. For the RCT, the main biases were related to implementation and measurement. Overall, the degree of bias was moderate.

Meta-analysis of clinical prognosis and recurrence rate

Seven studies reported OS outcomes. No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.583); therefore, a fixed-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The results showed that lymphadenectomy was associated with a better OS in patients with eEOC (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84, P < 0.001, Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for survival outcomes and recurrence in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. A overall survival; B: progression-free survival; C: recurrence rate

Full size image

Eight studies recorded the PFS data of patients. No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 38.1%, P = 0.126); thus, a fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled results. The results showed that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved PFS in patients with eEOC (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67–0.80, P < 0.001, Fig. 2B). In addition, eight articles reported recurrence data, and no significant heterogeneity was found (I2 = 36.1%, P = 0.141). Overall, the pooled results showed a significant difference in recurrence between the lymphadenectomy and control groups (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60–0.85, P < 0.001, Fig. 2C), indicating that lymphadenectomy could decrease the recurrence rates of patients with eEOC.

Subgroup analysis of OS

The results of the subgroup analyses are presented in Table 2. No significant difference in OS was observed between the lymphadenectomy and control groups in the univariate analysis (P = 0.796) or the RCT (P = 0.562) subgroups. In addition, subgroup analysis stratified by area (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62–0.89, P = 0.001 for western areas; OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42–0.90, P = 0.012 for eastern areas), histology (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52–0.99, P = 0.0146 for various; OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60–0.86, P < 0.001 for specific), stage (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47–0.93, P = 0.019 for stage ≥ I; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62–0.88, P = 0.001 for stage I only), and source of the control group (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61–0.87, P < 0.001 for NL; OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46–0.98, P = 0.039 for UCL) showed that lymphadenectomy was significantly associated with better OS.

Table 2 Outcomes of the subgroup analysis
Full size table

Subgroup analysis of PFS

As HR values could only be obtained after multifactor correction for PFS, subgroup analysis based on multivariate analysis was not conducted. Nonetheless, the results showed that statistical significances were observed in the subgroup stratified by area (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.68–0.82, P < 0.001 for western; OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.74, P = 0.001 for eastern), histology (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.68–0.82, P < 0.001 for various; OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.24–0.71, P = 0.002 for specific), and source of the control group (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47–0.77, P < 0.001 for NL; OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69–0.83, P < 0.001 for UCL), indicating that these factors affected the PFS of patients with eEOC. However, RCT (P = 0.156) subgroup and patients with stage I disease (P = 0.074) did not show a significant impact on PFS.

Subgroup analysis of recurrence

Recurrence outcomes were compared based on univariate analysis. The results were consistent among subgroups stratified by western area (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50–0.81, P < 0.001), RCS study (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.87, P = 0.001), “various” histology (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.95, P = 0.018), stage ≥ I (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.95, P = 0.018), and NL as the source of the control group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.45–0.99, P = 0.046). However, the association between eEOC and recurrence was not significant when stratified by eastern area (P = 0.114), RCT (P = 0.125), “specific” histology (P = 0.130), stage I (P = 0.130), or UCL as the source of the control group (P = 0.116).

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the results. As shown in Fig. 3A, the finally results for OS, PFS, and recurrence rates did not change after excluding the studies one a time (Fig. 3A C), indicating the stability of our findings.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Sensitivity analysis of survival outcomes and recurrence in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. A overall survival; B: progression-free survival; C: recurrence rate

Full size image

Publication bias

Egger test results for OS, PFS, and recurrence rates were 0.313, 0.071, and 0.643, respectively. In addition, the symmetrical funnel chart showed that the scattered-point distribution had good symmetry, suggesting that no significant bias was observed among the studies for the three outcomes (Fig. 4A C).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Funnel plot for the detection of publication bias. A: overall survival; B: progression-free survival; C: recurrence rate

Full size image

Discussion

eEOC is one of the most important health problems worldwide, and lymphatic metastasis is an accepted predictor of survival outcomes. Systematic lymphadenectomy is a major surgical procedure for eEOC; however, the clinical efficacy of lymphadenectomy remains controversial [24, 28]. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to systematically investigate the clinical outcomes of lymphadenectomy in the treatment of eEOC. Overall, 14 studies (13 RCS and one RCT) were included. Pooled analysis revealed that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS and PFS as well as a lower recurrence rate. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed that the area, histology, stage, and source of the control group may have influenced the effect of lymphadenectomy on OS improvement. In addition, in the control group, factors such as area, histology, and source were significantly associated with improved PFS in patients with eEOC. Overall, we conclude that patients with eEOC may benefit from lymphadenectomies.

In eEOC, the risk of occult pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastasis has been reported to be 6.1–29.6%, with an average incidence of 14.2% [31]. Ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease with diverse oncology properties [32]. Among different histological types, the serous subtype had the highest incidence of lymph node metastasis (23.3%), whereas the mucinous subtype had the lowest incidence (2.6%) [31]. Hence, lymphadenectomy should be avoided in patients with mucinous ovarian and low-grade serous cancer [33].

In this meta-analysis, we observed that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS and PFS in patients with clear cell ovarian cancer, which was also observed by Yamazaki et al. [28]. However, the number of mucinous ovarian cancer studies was very small (only to 1–2 articles), preventing us from drawing conclusive results. Notably, the prognostic value of lymphadenectomy is supported by previous studies. Compared with inadequate dissection, Matsuo et al. demonstrated a 15–25% reduction in mortality with adequate lymphadenectomy [20]. Meanwhile, the number of removed lymph nodes positively correlated with the OS of patients with EOC at stages I–IIA and IIIA1 [34]. In addition, a previous study reported that the risk of recurrence in patients who underwent lymphadenectomy decreased from 30 to 22% [35]. These studies further support the findings of the present meta-analysis.

Although systematic lymphadenectomy in early-stage ovarian cancer allows clinicians to detect macroscopic nodal disease and identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant therapy, it is also a procedure with a considerable treatment burden that may be associated with intraoperative and postoperative complications [36]. Recently, a large-scale randomized clinical trial showed that systematic lymphadenectomy did not provide a survival benefit in patients with advanced ovarian cancer and was associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications, suggesting that these patients should not undergo lymphadenectomy [37]. Compared to patients with advanced disease, those with early disease typically do not present obvious symptoms and do not have massive ascites [38]. Furthermore, the prognosis for early-stage disease differs significantly, with a 10-year survival exceeding 80%, while the 5-year survival rate for advanced disease is only 30–40% [39]. Thus, the primary purpose of lymphadenectomy in early-stage disease is to stage and guide subsequent therapy, whereas in advanced disease, it is to achieve optimal tumor reduction. This may partly explain the differential effects of lymphadenectomy on early- and advanced-stage ovarian cancer treatment outcomes.

Another important consideration is the role of adjuvant chemotherapy, which is thought to improve the prognosis of EOC [40]. Platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival and delays recurrence in patients with eEOC [41]. In addition, there is evidence that lymphadenectomy can remove occult microscopic lymphatic metastases; however, its effect is small compared to that of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy [5]. In contrast, Imterat et al. [33] revealed that adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin monotherapy after complete surgical staging is the standard of care for eEOC, indicating that systematic lymphadenectomy remains appropriate for patients with significant early-stage disease after careful evaluation of the histological subtypes. Additionally, apart from disease characteristics such as stage or histology, the decision to perform lymphadenectomy should consider the patient’s performance status. Di Donato et al. [42] found that in patients with advanced ovarian cancer accompanied by hepatobiliary involvement, highly complex multiorgan surgery, including lymphadenectomy, can provide a survival benefit. They also suggested that in actual clinical practice, the choice of surgery needs to be balanced between the expected improvement in survival and surgical morbidity or mortality. Hence, the implementation of systematic lymphadenectomy requires the consideration of the clinical presentation of each patient. Multicenter prospective studies are required to confirm our results.

These results indicate that lymphadenectomy is a relatively safe and acceptable procedure for eEOC, with a positive impact on overall survival. However, in the included studies, variations in the extent of lymphadenectomy were observed; for example, some clinicians performed only pelvic lymphadenectomy. In addition, the quality of systematic lymphadenectomy may vary slightly depending on the physician performing the procedure, and the number of removed lymph nodes is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the procedure. In this context, the potential role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is of interest. SLN biopsy improves the detection of positive lymph nodes from a qualitative standpoint rather than solely relying on the number of lymph nodes dissected. SLN biopsy has been widely utilized in early cervical and endometrial cancers [43, 44], and recent clinical trials have indicated that SLN biopsies are feasible and reliable for early-stage ovarian cancer [45]. However, due to the complexity of ovarian cancer, technical challenges remain. Therefore, SLN technology for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer is still in the experimental stage.

This study has several strengths. Firstly, the studies were collected from multiple databases and included large sample sizes, confirming the accuracy and credibility of the present conclusions. Secondly, no obvious heterogeneity was observed among the included studies, indicating a high level of confidence in the pooled results. Thirdly, no significant publication bias was observed, and the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the meta-analysis findings. Nevertheless, this meta-analysis had some limitations. Firstly, the therapeutic schedules, including surgical intervention and adjuvant treatment, were not consistent among the included studies. However, multivariate analysis adjusted for these factors may have affected the survival benefit of lymphadenectomy in patients with eEOC. Secondly, two of the 14 included studies had a large sample size [20, 25], which may have introduced sampling bias. Thirdly, most of the included studies were retrospective, and although multivariate analysis was performed in most cases, inconsistencies in the correction factors may also have affected the accuracy of the results. Lastly, the number of included studies was small in some subgroups, the definition of early-stage patients was not rigorously standardized, and two articles included a small number of stage III patients. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies employ more rigorous literature screening and high-quality designs with larger sample sizes to verify the conclusions of this study.

Conclusion

In summary, the results of this study showed that lymphadenectomy may improve OS and PFS while reducing the risk of recurrence in patients with eEOC.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the findings of this study are available in this article and the supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

CL:

Comprehensive lymphadenectomy

CI:

Confidence interval

eEOC:

Early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer

EOC:

Epithelial ovarian cancer

HR:

Hazard risk

NOS:

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

OS:

Overall survival

PCS:

Prospective cohort study

PFS:

Progression-free survival

RCS:

Retrospective cohort study

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

RR:

Risk ratio

UCL:

Pelvic lymphadenectomy/clinical lymph node evaluation

SLN:

Sentinel lymph node

References

  1. Viale PH. The American Cancer Society’s facts & figures: 2020 Edition. J Adv Practitioner Oncol. 2020;11(2):135–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wang Z, Guo E, Yang B, Xiao R, Lu F, You L, Chen G. Trends and age-period-cohort effects on mortality of the three major gynecologic cancers in China from 1990 to 2019: cervical, ovarian and uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;163(2):358–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, Gaudet MM, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):284–96.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deng T, Huang Q, Wan T, Luo X, Feng Y, Huang H, Liu J. The impact of lymph node dissection on survival in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021;32(3):e40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Heitz F, Harter P, Ataseven B, Heikaus S, Schneider S, Prader S, Bommert M, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Traut A, du Bois A. Stage- and histologic subtype-dependent frequency of Lymph Node Metastases in patients with epithelial ovarian Cancer undergoing systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(7):2053–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li T, Liu Y, Xie S, Wang H. Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy during fertility-sparing surgery in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian Cancer: a retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:913103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yoshihara M, Tamauchi S, Iyoshi S, Kitami K, Uno K, Tano S, Matsui S, Kajiyama H. Does complete-staging lymphadenectomy improve survival outcomes in stage I endometrioid epithelial ovarian carcinoma? A multi-institutional retrospective study with propensity score-weighted analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2021;51(3):387–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bizzarri N, du Bois A, Fruscio R, De Felice F, De Iaco P, Casarin J, Vizza E, Chiantera V, Corrado G, Cianci S, et al. Is there any therapeutic role of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(1):56–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chiyoda T, Sakurai M, Satoh T, Nagase S, Mikami M, Katabuchi H, Aoki D. Lymphadenectomy for primary ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;31(5):e67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao J, Yang X, Zhang Y. Systematic lymphadenectomy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of multiple epidemiology studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(1):49–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin Q, Liu W, Xu S, Li J, Tong J. The value of systematic lymphadenectomy during debulking surgery in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Ovarian Res. 2020;13(1):56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou J, Shan G, Chen Y. The effect of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(8):718–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim HS, Ju W, Jee BC, Kim YB, Park NH, Song YS, Kim SC, Kang SB, Kim JW. Systematic lymphadenectomy for survival in epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol cancer: Official J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2010;20(4):520–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lo CK-L, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tarsilla M. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. J Multidisciplinary Evaluation. 2008;6:142–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mariani A, Mandelbaum RS, Glaser GE, Gostout BS, Roman LD, Wright JD. Adequate pelvic lymphadenectomy and survival of women with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(5):e69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Abe A, Furumoto H, Irahara M, Ino H, Kamada M, Naka O, Sasaki M, Kagawa T, Okitsu O, Kushiki N. The impact of systematic para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy on survival in patients with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(5):1023–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen Q, Wang S, Lang JH. The impact of lymph node dissection on apparent stage I epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a population-based study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;154(3):550–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho CM, Chien TY, Shih BY, Huang SH. Evaluation of complete surgical staging with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and paclitaxel plus carboplatin chemotherapy for improvement of survival in stage I ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;88(3):394–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maggioni A, Benedetti Panici P, Dell’Anna T, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Pellegrino A, Rossi RS, Chiari S, Campagnutta E, Greggi S, et al. Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(6):699–704.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nasioudis D, Haggerty AF, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Burger RA, Morgan MA, Ko EM, Latif NA. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with a survival benefit for patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(2):302–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oshita T, Itamochi H, Nishimura R, Numa F, Takehara K, Hiura M, Tanimoto H, Noma J, Hayase R, Murakami A, et al. Clinical impact of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy for pT1 and pT2 ovarian cancer: a retrospective survey by the Sankai Gynecology Study Group. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(6):1107–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Svolgaard O, Lidegaard O, Nielsen ML, Nedergaard L, Mosgaard BJ, Lidang M, Mogensen O, Kock K, Blaakaer J, Staehr E, et al. Lymphadenectomy in surgical stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(3):256–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yamazaki H, Todo Y, Shimada C, Takeshita S, Minobe S, Okamoto K, Yamashiro K, Kato H. Therapeutic significance of full lymphadenectomy in early-stage ovarian clear cell carcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(2):e19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoshihara M, Kajiyama H, Tamauchi S, Iyoshi S, Yokoi A, Suzuki S, Kawai M, Nagasaka T, Takahashi K, Matsui S, et al. Prognostic impact of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy on clinically-apparent stage I primary mucinous epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a multi-institutional study with propensity score-weighted analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(2):145–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhao Y, Wang S, Qu YM, Ji YT, Shen K, Lang JH. Prognostic analysis for chinese patients with stage I ovarian endometrioid carcinoma. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10(1):63.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kleppe M, Wang T, Van Gorp T, Slangen BFM, Kruse AJ, Kruitwagen RFPM. Lymph node metastasis in stages I and II ovarian cancer: a review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123(3):610–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kossaï M, Leary A, Scoazec J-Y, Genestie C. Ovarian Cancer: a heterogeneous disease. Pathobiology. 2018;85(1–2):41–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Imterat M, Harter P. Early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: is systematic lymph node staging mandatory? J Gynecologic Oncol. 2021;32(4):e61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kleppe M, van der Aa MA, Van Gorp T, Slangen BF, Kruitwagen RF. The impact of lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy on survival: a nationwide cohort study of patients with clinical early-stage ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2016;66:83–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Powless CA, Aletti GD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Cliby WA. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(3):536–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Benedetti Panici P, Giannini A, Fischetti M, Lecce F, Di Donato V. Lymphadenectomy in Ovarian Cancer: is it still justified? Curr Oncol Rep. 2020;22(3):22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D, Reuss A, Vergote I, Marth C, Kim J-W, Raspagliesi F, Lampe B, Aletti G, et al. A Randomized Trial of Lymphadenectomy in patients with Advanced Ovarian Neoplasms. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(9):822–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lheureux S, Gourley C, Vergote I, Oza AM. Epithelial ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2019;393(10177):1240–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramalingam P. Morphologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular features of epithelial ovarian Cancer. Oncol (Williston Park). 2016;30(2):166–76.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Falcetta FS, Medeiros LR, Edelweiss MI, Pohlmann PR, Stein AT, Rosa DD. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for early stage cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD005342.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Oseledchyk A, Leitao MM, Konner J, O’Cearbhaill RE, Zamarin D, Sonoda Y, Gardner GJ, Long Roche K, Aghajanian CA, Grisham RN, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I endometrioid or clear cell ovarian cancer in the platinum era: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and end results Cohort Study, 2000–2013. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(12):2985–93.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Di Donato V, Giannini A, D’Oria O, Schiavi MC, Di Pinto A, Fischetti M, Lecce F, Perniola G, Battaglia F, Berloco P, et al. Hepatobiliary disease resection in patients with Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Prognostic Role and Optimal Cytoreduction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(1):222–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Matsuo K, Klar M, Nusbaum DJ, Hasanov MF, Vallejo A, Ciesielski KM, Muderspach LI, Roman LD, Wright JD. Utilization and outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Early Endometrial Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(5):809–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Niikura H, Tsuji K, Tokunaga H, Shimada M, Ishikawa M, Yaegashi N. Sentinel node navigation surgery in cervical and endometrial cancer: a review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(6):495–500.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lago V, Bello P, Montero B, Matute L, Padilla-Iserte P, Lopez S, Marina T, Agudelo M, Domingo S. Sentinel lymph node technique in early-stage ovarian cancer (SENTOV): a phase II clinical trial. Int J Gynecol cancer: Official J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2020;30(9):1390–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This study was supported by the Huai’an Natural Science Research Program (Program No. HAB202206).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency, The Affiliated Huai’an No. 1 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huai’an, 223300, Jiangsu, China

    Chenchen Yang

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Affiliated Huai’an No. 1 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huanghe Road West,, Huai’an, 223300, Jiangsu, China

    Ting Zhang & Can Shi

  3. Department of General Practice, The Affiliated Huai’an No. 1 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huai’an, 223300, Jiangsu, China

    Aifeng Gong

Authors
  1. Chenchen Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aifeng Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Can Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of the research: CY and CS; acquisition of data: TZ and CY; analysis and interpretation of data: AG and TZ; statistical analysis: CY; drafting of the manuscript: CY and CS; revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: CS. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Can Shi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, C., Zhang, T., Gong, A. et al. Influence of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Women's Health 23, 474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02615-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02615-6

Keywords

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us