Mithat Gönen1, Deborah Schrag, Martin R Weiser. 1. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1275 York Ave, Box 44, New York, NY 10065, USA. gonenm@mskcc.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adequate nodal staging of colon cancer has been defined as pathologic examination of at least 12 lymph nodes. We sought to refine this definition by quantifying the likelihood that a pathologically node-negative patient has, indeed, no positive nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage I-III adenocarcinoma of the colon between 1994 and 2005 and had at least one lymph node pathologically examined were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (n = 131,953). We estimated the sensitivity of the pathologic staging of locoregional spread using a beta-binomial model and developed the nodal staging score (NSS), which is the probability that a patient is correctly staged as node negative. NSS is a function of T stage and the number of examined nodes. RESULTS: The probability of missing a positive node that is in fact truly present is 29.7% if five nodes are examined, 20.0% if eight are examined, and drops to 13.6% for 12 nodes are examined. An NSS of 90% can be achieved by examining a single node for T1 and four nodes for T2 tumors. To maintain similar levels of NSS for T3, 13 nodes need to be examined and for T4 lesions, 21 nodes need to be examined. Graphical and tabular tools are provided to facilitate calculation of NSS and treatment decision making in practice. CONCLUSION: The minimum number of examined nodes for adequate staging depends on the T stage. The score we developed indicates the adequacy of nodal staging for patients with no positive nodes and can assist clinical decision making in the patient without nodal metastasis.
PURPOSE: Adequate nodal staging of colon cancer has been defined as pathologic examination of at least 12 lymph nodes. We sought to refine this definition by quantifying the likelihood that a pathologically node-negative patient has, indeed, no positive nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage I-III adenocarcinoma of the colon between 1994 and 2005 and had at least one lymph node pathologically examined were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (n = 131,953). We estimated the sensitivity of the pathologic staging of locoregional spread using a beta-binomial model and developed the nodal staging score (NSS), which is the probability that a patient is correctly staged as node negative. NSS is a function of T stage and the number of examined nodes. RESULTS: The probability of missing a positive node that is in fact truly present is 29.7% if five nodes are examined, 20.0% if eight are examined, and drops to 13.6% for 12 nodes are examined. An NSS of 90% can be achieved by examining a single node for T1 and four nodes for T2 tumors. To maintain similar levels of NSS for T3, 13 nodes need to be examined and for T4 lesions, 21 nodes need to be examined. Graphical and tabular tools are provided to facilitate calculation of NSS and treatment decision making in practice. CONCLUSION: The minimum number of examined nodes for adequate staging depends on the T stage. The score we developed indicates the adequacy of nodal staging for patients with no positive nodes and can assist clinical decision making in the patient without nodal metastasis.
Authors: Natalie E Joseph; Elin R Sigurdson; Alexandra L Hanlon; Hao Wang; Robert J Mayer; John S MacDonald; Paul J Catalano; Daniel G Haller Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Monica Bertagnolli; Brent Miedema; Mark Redston; Jeannette Dowell; Donna Niedzwiecki; James Fleshman; Jiri Bem; Robert Mayer; Michael Zinner; Carolyn Compton Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Al B Benson; Deborah Schrag; Mark R Somerfield; Alfred M Cohen; Alvaro T Figueredo; Patrick J Flynn; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Jean Maroun; Pamela McAllister; Eric Van Cutsem; Melissa Brouwers; Manya Charette; Daniel G Haller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T E Le Voyer; E R Sigurdson; A L Hanlon; R J Mayer; J S Macdonald; P J Catalano; D G Haller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Y Tan; Y J Kawamura; K Mizokami; J Sasaki; S Tsujinaka; T Maeda; M Nobuki; F Konishi Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: F C Wright; C H L Law; L Last; M Khalifa; A Arnaout; Z Naseer; N Klar; S Gallinger; A J Smith Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Malte Rieken; Stephen A Boorjian; Luis A Kluth; Umberto Capitanio; Alberto Briganti; R Houston Thompson; Bradley C Leibovich; Laura-Maria Krabbe; Vitaly Margulis; Jay D Raman; Mikhail Regelman; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Morgan Rouprêt; Mohammad Abufaraj; Beat Foerster; Mithat Gönen; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marianne Huebner; Michael Kendrick; Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; Florencia Que; Terry Therneau; Rui Qin; John Donohue; David Nagorney; Michael Farnell; Michael Sarr Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ding Ding; Ammar A Javed; Chunhui Yuan; Michael J Wright; Zunaira N Javed; Jonathan A Teinor; I Chae Ye; Richard A Burkhart; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mladjan Protic; Alexander Stojadinovic; Aviram Nissan; Zev Wainberg; Scott R Steele; David C Chen; Itzhak Avital; Anton J Bilchik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 6.113