Objective To evaluate the role of systematic lymphadenectomy (SL) vs. unsystematic lymphadenectomy (USL) for improving overall survival (OS) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods The databases such as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), CBM, CNKI and VIP were searched between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2010, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on SL vs. USL in treating EOC were included. Based on Cochrane handbook, the data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed, and then meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results The total 13 studies involving 22 796 patients were included, including 5 420 patients in the SL group, and the other 17 376 patients in the USL group. Two of the 13 studies were RCTs, and the other 11 were observational studies (including 2 studies retrieved from SEER data). The analyses on 2 RCTs showed that compared with USL, a) SL could not improve 5-PFS (OR=0.70, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.22, P=0.21) in early-stage EOC (FIGO I to II), but it did improve 5-PFS (OR=0.62, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.96, P=0.03) in advanced-stage EOC (FIGO III to IV); b) SL could not improve 5-OS in both early-stage EOC (OR=0.84; 95%CI 0.44 to1.58, P=0.58) and advanced-stage EOC (OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.37, P=0.73); and c) SL could not improve 5-OS in both early-stage (OR=0.84, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.58, P=0.58) and advanced-stage (OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.37, P=0.73) of EOC patients who had optimal tumor dubulking surgery. The analyses on observational studies showed that compared with USL, a) SL could not improve 5-PFS in both early-stage EOC (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.08 to 1.74, P=0.21) and advanced-stage (OR=2.88, 95%CI 0.95 to 8.72, P=0.06) EOC; b) Whether SEER impacts were excluded or not, SL did improve 5-OS in both early-stage EOC (OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.46 to 0.63, Plt;0.000 01) and advanced-stage (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.52, Plt;0.000 01) EOC; and c) For EOC patients who had optimal tumor dubulking surgery, SL could not improve 5-OS in early-stage (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.19, P=0.45), but it did improve 5-OS in advanced-stage (OR=0.53, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.88, P=0.01). Conclusion These findings suggest that maybe SL can improve 5-PFS and 5-OS in EOC. However, the efficacy of SL on 5-PFS and 5-OS is still undetermined, so more relevant studies are required for further investigating the role of SL in EOC.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the prognostic efficacy and safety of patients with ovarian cancer treated with systemic lymphadenectomy (SL). MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the prognostic outcomes of patients with ovarian cancer treated with SL from inception to December 16th, 2020. Six reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 5 RCTs and 23 cohort studies involving 6 166 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the 3-year survival rate, 5-year survival rate, 3-year progression-free survival rate, and 5-year progression-free survival rate between SL group and the no systemic lymphadenectomy (NSL) group. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection combined with large omentum resection had a better prognosis for patients. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that SL has no significant efficacy on survival and progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.