PURPOSE: We sought to examine the feasibility and clinical significance of current guidelines on nodal assessment in patients with rectal cancer (RC) treated with neoadjuvant radiation. METHODS: All patients with RC treated with curative surgery from 1991 to 2003 were included. Number of lymph nodes (LNs) assessed was compared between patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery (NEO) and patients who underwent surgery alone (SURG). Impact of node retrieval on node positivity and disease-specific survival (DSS) in NEO patients was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 708 patients were identified, of whom 429 (61%) were in the NEO group. These patients had significantly fewer nodes assessed than SURG patients (unadjusted mean, 10.8 v 15.5; adjusted mean difference, -5.0 nodes; P < .001). In the NEO group, 63% of patients had fewer than 12 nodes retrieved (P < .001 v SURG). The proportion of patients diagnosed with node-positive disease in the NEO group was significantly and monotonically associated with the number of lymph nodes retrieved, with no plateau in the relationship. Fewer nodes retrieved was not associated with inferior DSS. CONCLUSION: In a tertiary cancer center, the 12-LN threshold was not relevant and often not achievable in patients with RC treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lower LN count after neoadjuvant treatment was not associated with understaging or inferior survival. Although we support the critical importance of careful pathologic examination and adequate nodal staging, we challenge the relevance of LN count both in clinical practice and as a quality indicator in RC.
PURPOSE: We sought to examine the feasibility and clinical significance of current guidelines on nodal assessment in patients with rectal cancer (RC) treated with neoadjuvant radiation. METHODS: All patients with RC treated with curative surgery from 1991 to 2003 were included. Number of lymph nodes (LNs) assessed was compared between patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery (NEO) and patients who underwent surgery alone (SURG). Impact of node retrieval on node positivity and disease-specific survival (DSS) in NEOpatients was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 708 patients were identified, of whom 429 (61%) were in the NEO group. These patients had significantly fewer nodes assessed than SURG patients (unadjusted mean, 10.8 v 15.5; adjusted mean difference, -5.0 nodes; P < .001). In the NEO group, 63% of patients had fewer than 12 nodes retrieved (P < .001 v SURG). The proportion of patients diagnosed with node-positive disease in the NEO group was significantly and monotonically associated with the number of lymph nodes retrieved, with no plateau in the relationship. Fewer nodes retrieved was not associated with inferior DSS. CONCLUSION: In a tertiary cancer center, the 12-LN threshold was not relevant and often not achievable in patients with RC treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lower LN count after neoadjuvant treatment was not associated with understaging or inferior survival. Although we support the critical importance of careful pathologic examination and adequate nodal staging, we challenge the relevance of LN count both in clinical practice and as a quality indicator in RC.
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthias W Wichmann; Christian Müller; Günther Meyer; Tim Strauss; Hans M Hornung; Ulla Lau-Werner; Martin K Angele; Friedrich W Schildberg Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2002-02
Authors: C Ratto; L Sofo; M Ippoliti; M Merico; M Bossola; F M Vecchio; G B Doglietto; F Crucitti Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.585
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: 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: Peng Du; John P Burke; Wisam Khoury; Ian C Lavery; Ravi P Kiran; Feza H Remzi; David W Dietz Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Luis J García-Flórez; Guillermo Gómez-Álvarez; Ana M Frunza; Luis Barneo-Serra; Manuel F Fresno-Forcelledo Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-09-27
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Floris P R Verbeek; Stijn Keereweer; Jeroen C Jansen; Lilly-Ann van der Velden; Antonius P M Langeveld; Merlijn Hutteman; Clemens W G M Löwik; Cornelis J H van de Velde; John V Frangioni; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: In Ja Park; Chang Sik Yu; Seok-Byung Lim; Yong Sik Yoon; Chan Wook Kim; Tae Won Kim; Jong Hoon Kim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.452