Pretreatment Scalene Node Biopsy in Gynecologic Malignancy: Prudent or Passé?

• Published in: Gynecologic oncology 1999-11, Vol.75 (2), p.238-241
• Main Authors: Horowitz, Neil S., Tamimi, Hisham K., Goff, Barbara A., Koh, Wui-Jin, Schmidt, Rodney A., Greer, Benjamin E., Paley, Pamela J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Biopsy; Female; Female genital diseases; Genital Neoplasms, Female - pathology; Genital Neoplasms, Female - therapy; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Medical sciences; Neck; Tumors
• ISSN: 0090-8258; 1095-6859
• DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5571

Objectives. Surgicopathologic evaluation of the scalene fat pad is considered a critical step in the pretreatment evaluation of patients at our institution with cervical or corpus carcinoma when the periaortic lymph nodes (PAN) are involved. However, enthusiasm for this procedure at other centers has waned, largely due to a wide discrepancy in the reported rates of occult scalene node involvement. In an attempt to clarify the benefit of pretreatment scalene node sampling in gynecologic malignancies, we present our experience over the past 18 years. Materials and methods. We identified 57 patients who underwent scalene node sampling between 1980 and 1998. In 39 of 49 (80%), the decision to proceed with scalene node sampling was based entirely on histologically documented PAN metastases. In the remainder, scalene node sampling was prompted by the presence of suspicious clinical findings. Results. Of the 49 patients included in the study, 33 had carcinoma of the cervix, while 16 had corpus carcinoma. Ninety percent of scalene node sampling was performed at the time of primary diagnosis. Overall, 9 patients (18%) had scalene node metastases. Notably, not a single patient with corpus cancer was found to have scalene node metastases in the absence of clinically evident scalene node enlargement independent of PAN status. In cervix cancer cases, the presence of grossly involved PAN was predictive of a high likelihood of scalene node metastases (44%), while no patient with occult PAN metastases had involvement of the scalene node. Only 1 minor complication was encountered following scalene node sampling. The 40 scalene node-negative patients were treated with either extended field radiation or whole abdominal radiation therapy, and 20% developed a major, RTOG grade ≥3 complication such as fistula formation, bowel obstruction, or ureteral stenosis. Only 1 case of mild radiation enteritis and cellulitis occurred during palliative radiation in the group of patients with scalene node metastases. Conclusions. Scalene node sampling may be of benefit in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with cervical carcinoma when PAN are grossly involved. Given that scalene node involvement satisfies the criteria for distant metastases, identification of such allows the clinician to avoid the morbidity of extended field radiotherapy in a setting without the chance for cure.