You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial.
Abstract 1:
Pelvic lymph nodes are the most common site of extrauterine tumor spread in early-stage endometrial cancer, but the clinical impact of lymphadenectomy has not been addressed in randomized studies. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether the addition of pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy to standard hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy improves overall and disease-free survival.
                From October 1, 1996, through March 31, 2006, 514 eligible patients with preoperative International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I endometrial carcinoma were randomly assigned to undergo pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (n = 264) or no lymphadenectomy (n = 250). Patients' clinical data, pathological tumor characteristics, and operative and early postoperative data were recorded at discharge from hospital. Late postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, and follow-up data were collected 6 months after surgery. Survival was analyzed by use of the log-rank test and a Cox multivariable regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.
                The median number of lymph nodes removed was 30 (interquartile range = 22-42) in the pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy arm and 0 (interquartile range = 0-0) in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (P < .001). Both early and late postoperative complications occurred statistically significantly more frequently in patients who had received pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (81 patients in the lymphadenectomy arm and 34 patients in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, P = .001). Pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy improved surgical staging as statistically significantly more patients with lymph node metastases were found in the lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (13.3% vs 3.2%, difference = 10.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 14.9%, P < .001). At a median follow-up of 49 months, 78 events (ie, recurrence or death) had been observed and 53 patients had died. The unadjusted risks for first event and death were similar between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR] for first event = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.71, P = .68, and HR for death = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.07, P = .50). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates in an intention-to-treat analysis were similar between arms (81.0% and 85.9% in the lymphadenectomy arm and 81.7% and 90.0% in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, respectively).
                Although systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy statistically significantly improved surgical staging, it did not improve disease-free or overall survival.


Title 2:
Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study.
Abstract 2:
Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is the standard surgery for stage I endometrial cancer. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy has been used to establish whether there is extra-uterine disease and as a therapeutic procedure; however, randomised trials need to be done to assess therapeutic efficacy. The ASTEC surgical trial investigated whether pelvic lymphadenectomy could improve survival of women with endometrial cancer.
                From 85 centres in four countries, 1408 women with histologically proven endometrial carcinoma thought preoperatively to be confined to the corpus were randomly allocated by a minimisation method to standard surgery (hysterectomy and BSO, peritoneal washings, and palpation of para-aortic nodes; n=704) or standard surgery plus lymphadenectomy (n=704). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. To control for postsurgical treatment, women with early-stage disease at intermediate or high risk of recurrence were randomised (independent of lymph-node status) into the ASTEC radiotherapy trial. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 16571884.
                After a median follow-up of 37 months (IQR 24-58), 191 women (88 standard surgery group, 103 lymphadenectomy group) had died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.16 (95% CI 0.87-1.54; p=0.31) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year overall survival of 1% (95% CI -4 to 6). 251 women died or had recurrent disease (107 standard surgery group, 144 lymphadenectomy group), with an HR of 1.35 (1.06-1.73; p=0.017) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival of 6% (1-12). With adjustment for baseline characteristics and pathology details, the HR for overall survival was 1.04 (0.74-1.45; p=0.83) and for recurrence-free survival was 1.25 (0.93-1.66; p=0.14).
                Our results show no evidence of benefit in terms of overall or recurrence-free survival for pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early endometrial cancer. Pelvic lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended as routine procedure for therapeutic purposes outside of clinical trials.
We found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases the risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. The evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who receive lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgically related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation.