Stratification of lymph node metastases as macrometastases, micrometastases, or isolated tumor cells has no clinical implication in patients with cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN project.

BACKGROUND In cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis. METHODS We analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01-1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges. RESULTS LN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group. CONCLUSIONS In cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.

[1]  G. Scambia,et al.  CERVANTES: an international randomized trial of radical surgery followed by adjuvant (chemo) radiation versus no further treatment in patients with early-stage, intermediate-risk cervical cancer (CEEGOG-CX-05; ENGOT-CX16) , 2022, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[2]  X. Paoletti,et al.  Clinical impact of low-volume lymph node metastases in early-stage cervical cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis. , 2021, Gynecologic oncology.

[3]  F. Landoni,et al.  The annual recurrence risk model for tailored surveillance strategy in patients with cervical cancer. , 2021, European journal of cancer.

[4]  L. Dušek,et al.  Micrometastases in Sentinel Lymph Nodes Represent a Significant Negative Prognostic Factor in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study , 2020, Cancers.

[5]  P. Hillemanns,et al.  SENTICOL III: an international validation study of sentinel node biopsy in early cervical cancer. A GINECO, ENGOT, GCIG and multicenter study , 2019, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[6]  P. Mathevet,et al.  Impact of micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells on recurrence and survival in patients with early cervical cancer: SENTICOL Trial , 2019, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[7]  P. Dundr,et al.  A prospective multicenter trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer (SENTIX) , 2019, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[8]  D. Cibula,et al.  Sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in cervical cancer: Current limitations and unanswered questions. , 2019, Gynecologic oncology.

[9]  V. Gebski,et al.  Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  R. Pötter,et al.  The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. , 2018, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  D. Cibula,et al.  2017 Update on the Querleu–Morrow Classification of Radical Hysterectomy , 2017, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  S. Groshen,et al.  Lymph Node Micrometastases in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer are Not Predictive of Survival , 2015, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[13]  G. Kenter,et al.  Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[14]  L. Horn,et al.  Detection of micrometastases in pelvic lymph nodes in patients with carcinoma of the cervix uteri using step sectioning: Frequency, topographic distribution and prognostic impact. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  D. Querleu,et al.  Classification of radical hysterectomy. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  A. Bats,et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy improves staging in early cervical cancer. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[17]  D. Weaver.  Sentinel Lymph Nodes and Breast Carcinoma: Which Micrometastases Are Clinically Significant? , 2003, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  A. Giuliano,et al.  Proceedings of the Consensus Conference on the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma of the breast, April 19–22, 2001, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , 2002, Cancer.

[19]  B N Bundy,et al.  A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. , 1999, Gynecologic oncology.