Sanjay Singh Negi1, Amanjeet Singh, Adarsh Chaudhary. 1. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Liver Transplantation, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, 110060, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymph nodal involvement is a critical prognostic factor in patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC). Controversy exists regarding optimal categorization of nodal status, and no study has investigated the relevance of metastatic to examined nodes ratio (LNR) in these patients. METHODS: Demographic, operative and pathologic data including total lymph node count (TLNC), positive lymph node count (PLNC), LNR and involved nodal location was recorded in 57 patients with GBC who underwent curative intent resection. Disease-free survival (DFS) and predictors of outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 19 (i.q.r: 11-39.5) months, median DFS was 28.25 ± 3.62 months and 35 (61%) patients had developed recurrence. Thirty-three (58%) patients had nodal involvement, and a linear correlation was observed between TLNC and PLNC (r (2) = 0.249, p < 0.001). Optimal TLNC and LNR were determined to be 6 and 0.50, respectively. Patients with negative nodes (N0) were better sub-stratified based on TLNC (median DFS, TLNC ≥ 6 vs. TLNC < 6: not reached vs. 32.00 ± 4.80 months, p = 0.012). Amongst patients with involved nodes, LNR was significantly associated with DFS (median DFS, 0 < LNR ≤ 0.50 vs. LNR > 0.50: 14.00 ± 2.46 vs. 9.00 ± 1.55 months, p < 0.001). Prognosis was not related to location of involved nodes. Multivariable analysis revealed T stage, tumor differentiation and LNR to be independent predictors of DFS. CONCLUSIONS: LNR is a strong predictor of outcome after curative resection for GBC. The retrieval and examination of at least 6 nodes can influence staging quality and DFS in node-negative patients.
BACKGROUND: Lymph nodal involvement is a critical prognostic factor in patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC). Controversy exists regarding optimal categorization of nodal status, and no study has investigated the relevance of metastatic to examined nodes ratio (LNR) in these patients. METHODS: Demographic, operative and pathologic data including total lymph node count (TLNC), positive lymph node count (PLNC), LNR and involved nodal location was recorded in 57 patients with GBC who underwent curative intent resection. Disease-free survival (DFS) and predictors of outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 19 (i.q.r: 11-39.5) months, median DFS was 28.25 ± 3.62 months and 35 (61%) patients had developed recurrence. Thirty-three (58%) patients had nodal involvement, and a linear correlation was observed between TLNC and PLNC (r (2) = 0.249, p < 0.001). Optimal TLNC and LNR were determined to be 6 and 0.50, respectively. Patients with negative nodes (N0) were better sub-stratified based on TLNC (median DFS, TLNC ≥ 6 vs. TLNC < 6: not reached vs. 32.00 ± 4.80 months, p = 0.012). Amongst patients with involved nodes, LNR was significantly associated with DFS (median DFS, 0 < LNR ≤ 0.50 vs. LNR > 0.50: 14.00 ± 2.46 vs. 9.00 ± 1.55 months, p < 0.001). Prognosis was not related to location of involved nodes. Multivariable analysis revealed T stage, tumor differentiation and LNR to be independent predictors of DFS. CONCLUSIONS: LNR is a strong predictor of outcome after curative resection for GBC. The retrieval and examination of at least 6 nodes can influence staging quality and DFS in node-negative patients.
Authors: Kaori Ito; Hiromichi Ito; Peter J Allen; Mithat Gonen; David Klimstra; Michael I D'Angelica; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K Tsukada; I Kurosaki; K Uchida; Y Shirai; Y Oohashi; N Yokoyama; H Watanabe; K Hatakeyama Journal: Cancer Date: 1997-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael D'Angelica; Kimberly Moore Dalal; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Samuel P Shih; Richard D Schulick; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Henry A Pitt; Michael A Choti; Kurtis A Campbell; Charles J Yeo; Mark A Talamini Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thomas A Aloia; Nicolas Járufe; Milind Javle; Shishir K Maithel; Juan C Roa; Volkan Adsay; Felipe J F Coimbra; William R Jarnagin Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Woohyung Lee; Chi-Young Jeong; Young Hoon Kim; Young Hoon Roh; Myung Hee Yoon; Hyung Il Seo; Jeong-Ik Park; Bo-Hyun Jung; Dong Hoon Shin; Young Il Choi; Je Ho Ryu; Kwang Ho Yang; Chang Soo Choi; Yo-Han Park; Yang Won Nah; Soon-Chan Hong Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Koffi Wima; Audrey E Ertel; Alexandra Meier; Syed A Ahmad; Shimul A Shah; Daniel E Abbott Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.452