Literature DB >> 19515184

The prognostic importance of pathologically involved celiac node metastases in node-positive patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction: a surgical series from the Mayo Clinic.

David A Schomas1, J Fernando Quevedo, James M Donahue, Francis C Nichols, Yvonne Romero, Robert C Miller.   

Abstract

The management of esophageal cancer with involvement of celiac lymph nodes is controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical importance of metastases to celiac lymph nodes in patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) who undergo surgical treatment with curative intent. We reviewed the medical records of 310 patients who underwent definitive esophagectomy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1976 and 1999 for carcinoma of the distal esophagus or GEJ. The disease location was distal esophagus in 163 and GEJ in 147. Fifty-two patients (17%) were found to have celiac node involvement. The survival of these patients was compared with that of 97 N0 patients and 161 N1 patients without celiac node involvement. Squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinomas were found in 24% and 76%, respectively. Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common surgical procedure (76%), followed by transhiatal resection (14%) and modified Ivor Lewis procedure (5%). The median number of nodes resected was 15 (range, 2-45). The median survival of the entire group was 18.8 months. The median survival was 48 months (range, 1.6 months-22 years) for N0 patients and 15.9 months (range, 0.03 months-14.4 years) for N1 patients without celiac node disease (P < 0.001). The median survival was 11.7 months (range, 2.2 months-15.7 years) for celiac node-positive patients, and this difference was statistically significant when compared with survival in N0 patients (P= 0.001) but not when compared with that in N1 patients without celiac node disease (P= 0.57). Survival at 3 and 5 years was 61% and 45% for N0 patients, 21% and 9% for N1 patients without celiac node disease, and 18% and 11% for patients with celiac node disease, respectively. At 10 years, 7% of patients with celiac node involvement in their resected specimen were alive. By multivariate analysis, patients with 4 or more positive lymph nodes had the worst prognosis (risk ratio [RR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98-3.48), regardless of their location. We concluded that celiac node metastases were not an adverse prognostic indicator in patients with celiac node involvement compared with N1 patients without celiac node disease. Overall, the number of positive nodes, not their location, correlated best with survival. Although median survival was poor, a small number of patients with resected celiac node disease had long-term survival. Patients with undetected celiac node disease at the time of surgical resection who were subsequently found to have celiac node involvement appeared to have a prognosis similar to that of patients with stage III disease. Therefore, treatment with curative intent should be considered for fit patients with celiac node disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19515184     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2009.00990.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  8 in total

1.  Factors predicting survival in patients with proximal gastric carcinoma involving the esophagus.

Authors:  Yi-Fen Zhang; Jiong Shi; Hui-Ping Yu; An-Ning Feng; Xiang-Shan Fan; Gregory Y Lauwers; Hiroshi Mashimo; Jason S Gold; Gang Chen; Qin Huang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group.

Authors:  Daniel Palmes; Matthias Brüwer; Franz G Bader; Michael Betzler; Heinz Becker; Hans-Peter Bruch; Markus Büchler; Heinz Buhr; Beta Michael Ghadimi; Ulrich T Hopt; Ralf Konopke; Katja Ott; Stefan Post; Jörg-Peter Ritz; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Norbert Senninger
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Qin Huang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for assessment of lymph node metastases in pancreatobiliary carcinoma.

Authors:  Takeshi Miyata; Masayuki Kitano; Shunsuke Omoto; Kumpei Kadosaka; Ken Kamata; Hajime Imai; Hiroki Sakamoto; Naoshi Nisida; Yogesh Harwani; Takamichi Murakami; Yoshifumi Takeyama; Yasutaka Chiba; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Lymph node metastases near the celiac trunk should be considered separately from other nodal metastases in patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery.

Authors:  Sjoerd M Lagarde; Martinus C J Anderegg; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Sybren L Meijer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  The prognostic role of coeliac node metastasis after resection for distal oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Martin Rutegård; Pernilla Lagergren; Asif Johar; Ioannis Rouvelas; Jesper Lagergren
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Does recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node metastasis really affect the prognosis in node-positive patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the middle thoracic esophagus?

Authors:  Jie Wu; Qi-Xun Chen; Xing-Ming Zhou; Wei-Ming Mao; Mark J Krasna
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Prognostic value of supraclavicular nodes and upper abdominal nodes metastasis after definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xue Li; Lujun Zhao; Wencheng Zhang; Chengwen Yang; Zhen Lian; Shuai Wang; Ningbo Liu; Qingsong Pang; Ping Wang; Jinming Yu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.