T Junginger1, U Goenner, A Lollert, D Hollemann, M Berres, M Blettner. 1. Department of General and Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany, junginger@uni-mainz.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to clarify whether the lymph node ratio (LNR) is superior to the updated TNM classification regarding the prognosis of stage III rectal cancer patients who have not undergone neoadjuvant therapy. The TNM system is based on the absolute number of lymph nodes involved, and the LNR takes into account involved and examined nodes. METHODS: In 237 patients with stage III rectal cancer, we evaluated prognostic factors for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and risk of distant metastases (DM) using the Kaplan-Meier method, with patients divided based on adequate versus inadequate lymph node dissection (≥12 vs. <12 lymph nodes examined). The updated TNM divides patients into four groups (1, 2-3, 4-6, and ≥7 involved nodes), while LNR divides patients into quartiles. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among patients with adequate lymph node dissection, the distributions within the two systems were in agreement in 141/178 (79.2 %, kappa 0.721), and the predictive values for OS, DFS, and DM were similar. In patients with inadequate lymph node dissection, the classifications of both systems were concordant in only 13/59 (22 %, kappa 0.021). The pN system significantly under-staged patients, while the LNR classification was a better predictor of OS, DFS, and DM. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with adequate lymph node dissection, LNR staging does not add substantial information to the predictions of updated TNM lymph node staging. However, in patients with inadequate lymph node harvesting, the LNR compensates for the under-staging of the TNM classification and provides a better estimation of prognosis than the updated TNM system.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to clarify whether the lymph node ratio (LNR) is superior to the updated TNM classification regarding the prognosis of stage III rectal cancerpatients who have not undergone neoadjuvant therapy. The TNM system is based on the absolute number of lymph nodes involved, and the LNR takes into account involved and examined nodes. METHODS: In 237 patients with stage III rectal cancer, we evaluated prognostic factors for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and risk of distant metastases (DM) using the Kaplan-Meier method, with patients divided based on adequate versus inadequate lymph node dissection (≥12 vs. <12 lymph nodes examined). The updated TNM divides patients into four groups (1, 2-3, 4-6, and ≥7 involved nodes), while LNR divides patients into quartiles. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among patients with adequate lymph node dissection, the distributions within the two systems were in agreement in 141/178 (79.2 %, kappa 0.721), and the predictive values for OS, DFS, and DM were similar. In patients with inadequate lymph node dissection, the classifications of both systems were concordant in only 13/59 (22 %, kappa 0.021). The pN system significantly under-staged patients, while the LNR classification was a better predictor of OS, DFS, and DM. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with adequate lymph node dissection, LNR staging does not add substantial information to the predictions of updated TNM lymph node staging. However, in patients with inadequate lymph node harvesting, the LNR compensates for the under-staging of the TNM classification and provides a better estimation of prognosis than the updated TNM system.
Authors: Carlos A Vaccaro; Victor Im; Gustavo L Rossi; Guillermo Ojea Quintana; Mario L Benati; Diego Perez de Arenaza; Fernando A Bonadeo Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Gennaro Galizia; Michele Orditura; Francesca Ferraraccio; Paolo Castellano; Margherita Pinto; Anna Zamboli; Sabrina Cecere; Ferdinando De Vita; Carlo Pignatelli; Eva Lieto Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Cornelis J A Punt; Marc Buyse; Claus-Henning Köhne; Peter Hohenberger; Roberto Labianca; Hans J Schmoll; Lars Påhlman; Alberto Sobrero; Jean-Yves Douillard Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ovidiu Vasile Bochis; Zsolt Fekete; Catalin Vlad; Bogdan Fetica; Daniel Corneliu Leucuta; Constantin Ioan Busuioc; Alexandru Irimie Journal: Clujul Med Date: 2017-07-15