BACKGROUND: Staging of colorectal cancer is dependent on the number of lymph nodes in a surgical specimen that are positive for metastatic cancer. It is generally recommended that a minimum of 12 lymph nodes be examined to ensure adequate staging. It is unclear which factors specifically contribute to variation in the number of lymph nodes retrieved from surgical specimens. This study aims to understand the factors affecting the number of lymph nodes identified in surgical colorectal cancer specimens. METHODS: A total of 264 retrospectively collected cases of colorectal cancer surgically treated at the University Health Network in Toronto from 2004 to 2006 were analyzed. We used univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA), and univariate and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses to study variation in the lymph node number associated with a variety of explanatory variables. RESULTS: The average number of lymph nodes retrieved per case was 18.1, with 70 (26.5%) cases containing fewer than 12. Variation in the lymph node number was greatest between different pathology assistants (p = or< 0.001). The mean number of nodes retrieved by different pathology assistants ranged from 12.6 to 29.7. On average, surgery for recurrent cancer removed 6.0 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.9, p = 0.02) fewer lymph nodes than for primary cancer. Each additional year of patient age was associated with retrieval of 0.1 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.2, p = 0.005) fewer nodes, and rectal cancer specimens had 2.7 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.4, p = 0.05) fewer lymph nodes than colon cancer specimens. CONCLUSION: Most of the variation in the number of lymph nodes identified in surgical specimens from colorectal cancer operations was accounted for by differences between pathology assistants.
BACKGROUND: Staging of colorectal cancer is dependent on the number of lymph nodes in a surgical specimen that are positive for metastatic cancer. It is generally recommended that a minimum of 12 lymph nodes be examined to ensure adequate staging. It is unclear which factors specifically contribute to variation in the number of lymph nodes retrieved from surgical specimens. This study aims to understand the factors affecting the number of lymph nodes identified in surgical colorectal cancer specimens. METHODS: A total of 264 retrospectively collected cases of colorectal cancer surgically treated at the University Health Network in Toronto from 2004 to 2006 were analyzed. We used univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA), and univariate and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses to study variation in the lymph node number associated with a variety of explanatory variables. RESULTS: The average number of lymph nodes retrieved per case was 18.1, with 70 (26.5%) cases containing fewer than 12. Variation in the lymph node number was greatest between different pathology assistants (p = or< 0.001). The mean number of nodes retrieved by different pathology assistants ranged from 12.6 to 29.7. On average, surgery for recurrent cancer removed 6.0 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.9, p = 0.02) fewer lymph nodes than for primary cancer. Each additional year of patient age was associated with retrieval of 0.1 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.2, p = 0.005) fewer nodes, and rectal cancer specimens had 2.7 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.4, p = 0.05) fewer lymph nodes than colon cancer specimens. CONCLUSION: Most of the variation in the number of lymph nodes identified in surgical specimens from colorectal cancer operations was accounted for by differences between pathology assistants.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Arden M Morris; David A Rothenberger; Joel E Tepper Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J E Tepper; M J O'Connell; D Niedzwiecki; D Hollis; C Compton; A B Benson; B Cummings; L Gunderson; J S Macdonald; R J Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-04-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberto Persiani; Ferdinando C M Cananzi; Alberto Biondi; Giuseppe Paliani; Andrea Tufo; Francesco Ferrara; Vincenzo Vigorita; Domenico D'Ugo Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; Mark S Talamonti; David P Winchester; Thomas R Russell; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter Ihnát; Patricie Delongová; Jaroslav Horáček; Lucia Ihnát Rudinská; Petr Vávra; Pavel Zonča Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Vasu Divi; Jonathan Harris; Paul M Harari; Jay S Cooper; Jonathan McHugh; Diana Bell; Erich M Sturgis; Anthony J Cmelak; Mohan Suntharalingam; David Raben; Harold Kim; Sharon A Spencer; George E Laramore; Andy Trotti; Robert L Foote; Christopher Schultz; Wade L Thorstad; Qiang Ed Zhang; Quynh Thu Le; F Christopher Holsinger Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Fania S Doekhie; Hans Morreau; Geertruida H de Bock; Frank M Speetjens; N Geeske Dekker-Ensink; Hein Putter; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Cancer Microenviron Date: 2008-08-06