Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Gynecological Oncology

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1635672

The role of complementary lymphadenectomy in patients with incidental endometrial cancer

Provisionally accepted
Diddier  PradaDiddier Prada1*Salim  Barquet-MuñozSalim Barquet-Muñoz2Pamela  Martinez-AlpizarPamela Martinez-Alpizar2Andrea  RamirezAndrea Ramirez2Pamela  Rico-MejíaPamela Rico-Mejía2Delia  Pérez MontielDelia Pérez Montiel2Cintia  María Sepúlveda-RiveraCintia María Sepúlveda-Rivera3Jonathan  González-RuízJonathan González-Ruíz2Alejandro  MoharAlejandro Mohar2,4Carlos  Pérez-PlasenciaCarlos Pérez-Plasencia2,4DAVID FRANCISO  CANTÚ DE LEÓNDAVID FRANCISO CANTÚ DE LEÓN2
  • 1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
  • 2Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
  • 3Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia, Mexico City, Mexico
  • 4Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Up to 3.0% of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer after hysterectomy for apparently benign conditions. There is controversy about the benefit of complementary lymphadenectomy in incidental endometrial cancer after hysterectomy. Objective: To evaluate the role complementary lymphadenectomy during a second surgery in the prognosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Study design: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma from 2005 to 2019. Two groups were evaluated: patients who underwent a second surgery involving pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy and patients who did not undergo surgical lymph node evaluation. Logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with whether or not a complementary lymphadenectomy was performed. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to generate survival curves, and the log-rank test was used for comparisons. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with the Cox test. Results: Two hundred and sixty patients were included. Among them, 120 (46.15%) underwent complementary lymphadenectomy, and 140 (53.83%) did not. The factors associated with performing complementary lymphadenectomy in a second surgical procedure were higher grade, nonendometrioid histology and deep myometrial involvement. The factors associated with adjuvant treatment were high-grade histology, deep myometrial involvement, cervical involvement and extensive lymphovascular permeation. Complementary lymphadenectomy was not associated with adjuvant treatment (OR 0.85 95% CI 0.35-2.02), overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.40 95% CI 1.16-1.00) or disease-free survival (HR 0.77 95% CI 0.38-1.59). Conclusions: No clear therapeutic or prognostic role was identified for complementary lymphadenectomy during a second surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Although adjuvant therapy was more common in patients who underwent complementary lymphadenectomy, it was not independently associated with receiving adjuvant therapy. Individualizing treatment decisions remains important when considering a second surgical procedure.

Keywords: endometrial cancer, Lymphadenectomy, complementary, prognosis, Hysterectomy

Received: 26 May 2025; Accepted: 03 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Prada, Barquet-Muñoz, Martinez-Alpizar, Ramirez, Rico-Mejía, Pérez Montiel, Sepúlveda-Rivera, González-Ruíz, Mohar, Pérez-Plasencia and DE LEÓN. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Diddier Prada, diddier.prada@mountsinai.org

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.