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.

Effect of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy on Survival in Patients with Low-Risk Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer Diagnosed Intraoperatively Using Frozen Tissue Sections: A Retrospective Analysis

The significance of pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I endometrial carcinoma.

[Accuracy of Preoperative Tumor Grading and Intraoperative Gross Examination of Myometrial Invasion in Clinical Stage I Endometriod Adenocarcinoma].

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

The effect of introducing pelvic lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence rates in Danish endometrial cancer patients at high risk: a Danish Gynecological Cancer Group study

A cohort study evaluating paraaortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer.

Accuracy of Tumor Grade by Preoperative Curettage and Associated Clinicopathologic Factors in Clinical Stage I Endometriod Adenocarcinoma

Extraperitoneal Laparoscopy for Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Carcinoma Staging: an Approach with Higher Efficiency.

Should All Endometrioid Uterine Cancer Patients Undergo Systemic Lymphadenectomy?

Effect of Suspended Silt and Other Substances on Rate of Feeding of Oysters.

Safety of ovarian preservation in women with stage I and II cervical adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study and meta-analysis.

Evaluation of Laparoscopic Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Management of Endometrial Carcinoma

Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer

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

The impact of sentinel lymph node sampling versus traditional lymphadenectomy on the survival of patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer

Article Evaluation of treatment strategies and prognostic factors of 135 patients with low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma

Impact of surgical approach on prevalence of positive peritoneal cytology and lymph-vascular invasion in patients with early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a National Cancer Database study

Comparison of survival outcomes with or without Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer in China from 2004 to 2016

[Impact of Surgical Resection Extent on the Prognosis of Clinical Stage I Endometrial Carcinoma].

High-risk factors and prognostic analysis ofpelvic nodal metastasis in patients with endometrial carcinoma

Whether surgical procedure can improve the prognosis of endometrial cancer arising in adenomyosis (EC-AIA)? a systematic review and meta-analysis