Comparative analysis of surgical approaches for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer patients

Background. To date, the role of lymphadenectomy in stage I endometrial cancer has been relegated to the background in favor of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Taking into account the new data on the improved survival in patients at high risk of lymph node metastasis after pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and the tendency to upstaging in accordance with the new FIGO 2023 classification, the problem of performing para-aortic lymphadenectomy becomes relevant again.

The study objective: a comparative analysis of surgical accesses used in performing lumbar lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer patients with an emphasis on the disadvantages and advantages of each surgical approach.

Material and Methods. Medical records of 122 endometrial cancer patients treated at the S. P. Botkin Moscow Medical Scientific Center were retrospectively analyzed. The study included patients undergoing pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and hysterectomy through four surgical access methods: laparotomy (n=28), laparoscopic transabdominal (n=30), laparoscopic retroperitoneal (n=41) and robot-assisted retroperitoneal (n=23). The following parameters were compared between the subgroups: body mass index of patients, duration of surgery, number of removed pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, frequency of achieving III and IV levels of lymphadenectomy, frequency of intraand postoperative complications, length of hospital stay in the postoperative period, and frequency of transfers to intensive care unit.

Results. Compared with other subgroups, surgery performed via laparoscopic retroperitoneal access was characterized by the shortest duration of surgery, high frequency of achieving level IV lymphadenectomy and acceptable level of intraand postoperative complications.

Conclusion. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal access was found to have greatest advantageous in performing lumbar lymphadenectomy.

1. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2023 (morbidity and mortality). Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow, 2024. 276 p. (in Russian)]. ISBN: 978-585502-298-8.

2. Makker V., MacKay H., Ray-Coquard I., Levine D.A., Westin S.N., Aoki D., Oaknin A. Endometrial cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7(1): 88. doi: 10.1038/s41572-021-00324-8.

3. Uterine body cancer and uterine sarcomas: clinical guidelines. Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 2021. (in Russian). [Internet]. [cited 10.01.2025]. URL: hrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rrcrst.ru/content/klinicheskie-rekomendaczii/Рактеламаткиисаркомыматки.pdf.

4. Nechushkina V.M., Kolomiets L.A., Kravets O.A., Morkhov K.Yu., Novikova E.G., Novikova O.V., Tyulyanina A.S., Ulrikh E.A., Fedenko A.A., Khokhlova S.V. Uterine body cancer and uterine sarcomas. RUSSCO practical guidelines, part 1.2. Malignant tumors 2024; 14(3s2): 165–88. (in Russian)]. doi: 10.18027/2224-5057-2024-14-3s2-1.2-06. EDN: TMATCS.

5. Bogani G., Murgia F., Ditto A., Raspagliesi F. Sentinel node mapping vs. lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 153(3): 676–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.03.254.

6. Oaknin A., Bosse T.J., Creutzberg C.L., Giornelli G., Harter P., Joly F., Lorusso D., Marth C., Makker V., Mirza M.R., Ledermann J.A., Colombo N.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33(9): 860–77. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.009.

7. Concin N., Matias-Guiu X., Vergote I., Cibula D., Mirza M.R., Marnitz S., Ledermann J., Bosse T., Chargari C., Fagotti A., Fotopoulou C., Gonzalez Martin A., Lax S., Lorusso D., Marth C., Morice P., Nout R.A., O’Donnell D., Querleu D., Raspollini M.R., Sehouli J., Sturdza A., Taylor A., Westermann A., Wimberger P., Colombo N., Planchamp F., Creutzberg C.L. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021; 31(1): 12–39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230.

8. Persson J., Salehi S., Bollino M., Lönnerfors C., Falconer H., Geppert B. Pelvic Sentinel lymph node detection in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (SHREC-trial)-the final step towards a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Eur J Cancer. 2019; 116: 77–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.025.

9. Cusimano M.C., Vicus D., Pulman K., Maganti M., Bernardini M.Q., Bouchard-Fortier G., Laframboise S., May T., Hogen L.F., Covens A.L., Gien L.T., Kupets R., Rouzbahman M., Clarke B.A., Mirkovic J., Cesari M., Turashvili G., Zia A., Ene GEV., Ferguson S.E. Assessment of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs Lymphadenectomy for Intermediateand HighGrade Endometrial Cancer Staging. JAMA Surg. 2021; 156(2): 157–64. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5060.

10. Larish A., Mariani A., Langstraat C. Controversies in the Management of Early-stage Serous Endometrial Cancer. In Vivo. 2021; 35(2): 671–80. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12307.

11. Kim N.R., So K.A., Kim T.J., Lim K., Lee K.H., Kim M.K. Role of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate to high-risk early stage endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2023; 34(3): e23. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e23.

12. Ignatov A., Ivros S., Bozukova M., Papathemelis T., Ortmann O., Eggemann H. Systematic lymphadenectomy in early stage endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 302(1): 231–39. doi: 10.1007/s00404020-05600-8.

13. Aboulouard S., Wisztorski M., Duhamel M., Saudemont P., Cardon T., Narducci F., Lemaire A.S., Kobeissy F., Leblanc E., Fournier I., Salzet M. In-depth proteomics analysis of sentinel lymph nodes from individuals with endometrial cancer. Cell Rep Med. 2021; 2(6): 100318. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100318.

14. Guan J., Xue Y., Zang R.Y., Liu J.H., Zhu J.Q., Zheng Y., Wang B., Wang H.Y., Chen X.J. Sentinel lymph Node mapping versus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy on the prognosis for patients with intermediatehigh-risk Endometrial Cancer confined to the uterus before surgery: trial protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (SNEC trial). J Gynecol Oncol. 2021; 32(4): e60. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e60.

15. Baiocchi G., Andrade CEMC., Ribeiro R., Moretti-Marques R., Tsunoda A.T., Alvarenga-Bezerra V., Lopes A., Costa RLR., Kumagai L.Y., Badiglian-Filho L., Faloppa C.C., Mantoan H., De Brot L., Dos Reis R., Goncalves B.T. Sentinel lymph node mapping versus sentinel lymph node mapping with systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized trial (ALICE trial). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022; 32(5): 676–79. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003378.

16. Berek J.S., Matias-Guiu X., Creutzberg C., Fotopoulou C., Gaffney D., Kehoe S., Lindemann K., Mutch D., Concin N.; Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women’s Cancer Committee. FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023; 162(2): 383–94. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14923.

17. Imai K., Hirooka-Nakama J., Hotta Y., Shigeta H. A Review of Laparoscopic Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy for Early-stage Endometrial Cancer: Extraperitoneal Approach May Have the Advantage over Intraperitoneal Approach. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023; 13(1): 10–18. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_25_23.

18. Zhang W., Xia L., Han X., Ju X., Wu X., Chen X. Extraperitoneal laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial carcinoma staging: an approach with higher efficiency. World J Surg Oncol. 2021; 19(1): 323. doi: 10.1186/s12957-021-02416-x.