Abstract: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.

The Role of Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prognostic Significance of Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Optimally Debulked Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Evaluation of the prognostic value of lymphadenectomy for low-grade serous ovarian cancer: A case-control multicenter retrospective study

[Prognostic significance of systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a Meta-analysis].

Lymphadenectomy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The impact of lymphadenectomy on survival outcomes of ovarian clear cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Systematic Lymphadenectomy

The Impact of Lymphadenectomy on Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Role of lymph node involvement and lymphadenectomy in patients with different subtypes of uterine sarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

What Influences the Long-Term Survival of Advanced High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer?

Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer

Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Ovarian, Endometrial, Gastric, and Bladder Cancers: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Systematic Lymph Node Dissection May Be Abolished in Patients with Apparent Early-Stage Low-Grade Mucinous and Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Effectiveness and Safety of Systematic and Selective Lymphadenectomies in Chinese Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Received Sublobar Resection.

Systematic Lymphadenectomy and Oncological Outcomes of Women With Apparent Early-Stage Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Endometrium: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study

Lymphadenectomy in clinically early epithelial ovarian cancer and survival analysis (LILAC): a Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators Collaboration (GORILLA-3002) retrospective study

Prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis and lymphadenectomy in early-stage ovarian carcinosarcoma

Therapeutic Role of Systematic Retroperitoneal Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Cancer

Systemic Pelvic and Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy and Prognostic Significance in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Malignancies: A Meta-Analysis and Research

The impact of lymphadenectomy on the survival outcomes of ovarian clear cell carcinoma: A retrospective study of the SEER database and Chinese registry

Clinical parameters affecting survival outcomes in patients with low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: an international multicentre analysis