BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic significance of the lymph node ratio (LNR) with the absolute number of affected lymph nodes for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Data were collected from 84 patients who had undergone pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma over a 10-year period. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the absolute LNR (0, 0-0.199, 0.2-0.299, > or =0.3). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the prognostic effect. RESULTS: An LNR of > or =0.2 (median survival 8.1 vs. 35.7 months with LNR < 0.2; p < 0.001) and > or =0.3 (median survival 5.9 vs. 29.6 months with LNR < 0.3; p < 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.017), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), and nodal involvement (p < 0.001) were found to be significant prognostic markers following univariate analysis. Following multivariate analysis, only LNR at both levels [> or =0.2 (p = 0.05; HR 1.8) and LNR of > or =0.3 (p = 0.01; HR 2.7)] were independent predictors of a poor outcome. The number of lymph nodes examined had no effect on overall survival in either node-positive patients (p = 0.339) or node-negative patients (p = 0.473). CONCLUSIONS: The LNR represents a stronger independent prognostic indicator than the absolute number of affected lymph nodes in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic significance of the lymph node ratio (LNR) with the absolute number of affected lymph nodes for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Data were collected from 84 patients who had undergone pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma over a 10-year period. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the absolute LNR (0, 0-0.199, 0.2-0.299, > or =0.3). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the prognostic effect. RESULTS: An LNR of > or =0.2 (median survival 8.1 vs. 35.7 months with LNR < 0.2; p < 0.001) and > or =0.3 (median survival 5.9 vs. 29.6 months with LNR < 0.3; p < 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.017), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), and nodal involvement (p < 0.001) were found to be significant prognostic markers following univariate analysis. Following multivariate analysis, only LNR at both levels [> or =0.2 (p = 0.05; HR 1.8) and LNR of > or =0.3 (p = 0.01; HR 2.7)] were independent predictors of a poor outcome. The number of lymph nodes examined had no effect on overall survival in either node-positive patients (p = 0.339) or node-negative patients (p = 0.473). CONCLUSIONS: The LNR represents a stronger independent prognostic indicator than the absolute number of affected lymph nodes in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T M Breslin; K R Hess; D B Harbison; M E Jean; K R Cleary; A P Dackiw; R A Wolff; J L Abbruzzese; N A Janjan; C H Crane; J N Vauthey; J E Lee; P W Pisters; D B Evans Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ted A James; David G Sheldon; Ashwani Rajput; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Milind M Javle; Hector R Nava; Judy L Smith; John F Gibbs Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Axel Richter; Marco Niedergethmann; Jörg W Sturm; Dietmar Lorenz; Stefan Post; Michael Trede Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Robert Rosenberg; Jan Friederichs; Tibor Schuster; Ralf Gertler; Matthias Maak; Karen Becker; Anne Grebner; Kurt Ulm; Heinz Höfler; Hjalmar Nekarda; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert M Cannon; Ryan LeGrand; Ryaz B Chagpar; Syed A Ahmad; Rebecca McClaine; Hong Jin Kim; Christopher Rupp; Cliff S Cho; Adam Brinkman; Sharon Weber; Emily R Winslow; David A Kooby; Carrie K Chu; Charles A Staley; Ian Glenn; William G Hawkins; Alexander A Parikh; Nipun B Merchant; Kelly M McMasters; Robert C G Martin; Glenda G Callender; Charles R Scoggins Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Shahid G Farid; Gavin A Falk; Daniel Joyce; Sricharan Chalikonda; R Matthew Walsh; Andrew M Smith; Gareth Morris-Stiff Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Cynthia E Weber; Eileen A Bock; Michael G Hurtuk; Gerard J Abood; Jack Pickleman; Margo Shoup; Gerard V Aranha Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicolas Christian Buchs; Pietro Addeo; Francesco Maria Bianco; Subhashini Ayloo; Enrico Benedetti; Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Nakul P Valsangkar; Devon M Bush; James S Michaelson; Cristina R Ferrone; Jennifer A Wargo; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw; Sarah P Thayer Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 3.452