title: Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011.Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease, radiotherapy is extended to cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is confirmed. Therefore, accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2012). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial that was at moderate risk of bias.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Since the last version of this review no new studies were found.From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However, this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore, the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.
authors.affiliation: Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. Elly.Brockbank@rmh.nhs.uk.
authors.forename: Elly
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Brockbank
authors.forename: Fani
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Kokka
authors.forename: Andrew
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bryant
authors.forename: Christophe
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pomel
authors.forename: Karina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Reynolds
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001012:Aorta, Abdominal; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008197:Lymph Node Excision / Q000009:adverse effects; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000601:surgery
references.citation: CMAJ. 2008 Mar 25;178(7):855-62
references.pmid: 18362381
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
references.pmid: 7823387
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108
references.pmid: 15761078
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Apr;33(1):71-5
references.pmid: 2703170
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;183(3):529-33
references.pmid: 10992169
references.citation: Cancer. 1998 Jun 1;82(11):2241-8
references.pmid: 9610705
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1986 Jun;24(2):194-206
references.pmid: 3086190
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
references.pmid: 3802833
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Feb 1;76(2):477-84
references.pmid: 19464824
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1339-48
references.pmid: 10334517
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1988 Jun;12(2):121-7
references.pmid: 3406457
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1144-53
references.pmid: 10202165
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Jul;70(1):135-47
references.pmid: 10884542
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Jan;64(1):49-53
references.pmid: 8995546
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1999 May;9(3):194-197
references.pmid: 11240766
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Apr;49(1):24-9
references.pmid: 8482555
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 1993;32(1):63-7
references.pmid: 8466766
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Apr;89(1):160-7
references.pmid: 12694671
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2003;14 Suppl 5:v61-118
references.pmid: 14684501
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8289-95
references.pmid: 16230678
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):832-9
references.pmid: 18245509
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Aug 2;274(5):387-93
references.pmid: 7616634
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2000 Jul;10(4):305-312
references.pmid: 11240691
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 1995 Nov;171(11):655-60
references.pmid: 7502230
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
references.pmid: 9250266
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Jun;33(3):283-9
references.pmid: 2722050
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1990 Sep;38(3):425-30
references.pmid: 2227556
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2007 May;105(2):304-11
references.pmid: 17258799
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):536-44
references.pmid: 16126259
references.citation: Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1874-6
references.pmid: 18348308
references.citation: Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1954-63
references.pmid: 18338811
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1977 Dec;50(6):658-64
references.pmid: 927755
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002 Jan-Feb;12(1):22-6
references.pmid: 11860532
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jul 15;68(4):1081-7
references.pmid: 17398031
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jul;86(1):43-50
references.pmid: 7784021
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Mar-Apr;58(2):71-96
references.pmid: 18287387
references.citation: BMJ. 1999 Nov 13;319(7220):1304
references.pmid: 10559056
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490
references.pmid: 15205295
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Oct;87(1):46-51
references.pmid: 12468341
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Nov;51(2):187-92
references.pmid: 8276292
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Sep;74(3):436-42
references.pmid: 10479506
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Sep;106(3):604-13
references.pmid: 17628644
references.citation: Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
references.pmid: 9746022
references.citation: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1999;20(2):90-3
references.pmid: 10376420
references.citation: Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34
references.pmid: 9921604
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Nov;91(2):326-31
references.pmid: 14599862
references.citation: Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;106(4):914-22
references.pmid: 16411226
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Aug;70(2):209-62
references.pmid: 11041682
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Apr;43(4):544-8
references.pmid: 4817005
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1982 Jan;8(1):13-8
references.pmid: 7061247
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
references.pmid: 12958120