To compare oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer and negative nodes who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy alone (SLNB) versus pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL). An ancillary analysis of two prospective multicentric trials on SLN biopsy for cervical cancer (SENTICOL I and II) was conducted. Only patients with early-stage cervical cancer (IA to IIA FIGO stage), bilateral detection of SLN, negative SLN after ultrastaging and negative non-SLN after final pathologic examination were included. Risk-factors of recurrence and disease-specific mortality were determined by Cox proportional hazard models. Between January 2005 and July 2012, 259 node-negative patients were analyzed: 87 in the SLNB group and 172 in the PL group. The median follow-up was 47 months [4-127]. During the follow-up, 21 patients (8.1%) experienced recurrences, including 4 nodal recurrences (1.9%), and 9 patients (3.5%) died of cervical cancer. Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were similar between SLNB and PL groups, 85.1% vs. 80.4%, p = 0.24 and 90.8% vs. 97.2%, p = 0.22 respectively. By Cox multivariate analysis, SLNB compared to PL was not associated with DFS (HR = 1.78, 95%CI = [0.71-4.46], p = 0.22) neither with DSS (HR = 3.02, 95%CI = [0.69-13.18], p = 0.14). Only pathologic risk level according to the Sedlis criteria was an independent predictor of DFS and DSS. Omitting full pelvic lymphadenectomy for patients with bilateral negative SLN does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of recurrence in this series. Survival non-inferiority needs to be confirmed by prospective trials.

Background: With the development of the sentinel node technique in early-stage cervical cancer, it is imperative to define the clinical significance of micrometastases (MICs) and isolated tumor cells (ITCs). Methods: We included all patients who participated in the Senticol 1 and Senticol 2 studies. We analyzed the factors associated with the presence of low-volume metastasis, the oncological outcomes of patients with MIC and ITC and the correlation of recurrences and risk factors. Results: Twenty-four patients (7.5%) had low-volume metastasis. The risk factors associated with the presence of low-volume metastasis were a higher stage (p = 0.02) and major stromal invasion (p = 0.01) in the univariate analysis. The maximum specificity and sensitivity were found at a cutoff of 8 mm of stromal invasion. In multivariate analysis, the higher stage (p = 0.02) and the positive lymphovascular space invasion (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with the MIC and ITC. Patients with low-volume metastasis had similar disease-free survival (DFS) (92.7%) to node-negative patients (93.6%). The addition of adjuvant treatment in presence of low-volume metastasis did not modify the DFS. Conclusions: These results confirm our previous analysis of Senticol 1: the presence of low-volume metastasis did not decrease the DFS in early-stage cervical cancer patients.