Literature DB >> 24885443

Solitary lymph node metastasis is a distinct subset of colon cancer associated with good survival: a retrospective study of surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results population-based data.

Qingguo Li, Yuwei Wang, Guoxiang Cai, Dawei Li, Sanjun Cai1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer with lymph node metastases has been considered as advanced stage and to have poor survival. We postulated that patients with solitary lymph node metastasis are a distinct subset with better colon cancer-specific survival than those with multiple lymph node metastases.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, we searched Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) population-based data and identified 86,674 patients who had been diagnosed with colon cancer without distant metastases and with less than three metastatic nodes between 1991 and 2005. We divided lymph node status into three subgroups: pN0, pN1a, and pN1b and obtained 5-year colon cancer-specific survival for each pT stage. We used Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression models to assess correlations between risk factors and survival outcomes.
RESULTS: Analysis of SEER data confirmed that patients with solitary lymph node metastases had better 5-year cancer-specific survival than pN1b according to both univariate and multivariate analysis. This finding was confirmed by further analyses in five pT subgroups. Cancer-specific survival of patients with pT1-2N1a was comparable to that of those with pIIA but higher than those with pIIB. In addition, survival of patients with pT3-4aN1a was better than those with pIIC.
CONCLUSION: Colon cancer patients with solitary lymph node metastasis are a distinct subset with a favorable prognosis; full consideration should be given to this in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24885443      PMCID: PMC4070651          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Cancer        ISSN: 1471-2407            Impact factor:   4.430


Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the commonest malignancies, is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States [1]. The incidence of CRC in Asian countries is increasing rapidly and is likely similar to that in Western countries [2,3]. In China, both the incidence and mortality rate of CRC are increasing [4]. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment of local and regional disease. Lymphadenectomy, a critical component of surgical procedures for patients with CRC, is performed with the aim of achieving complete resection of lesions. In 2000, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended pathologic examination of at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) in the staging of colon cancer (CC). The number of metastatic LNs has been identified as an independent prognostic factor [5-7]. In the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual for CC, N1 lesions were subdivided into N1a (solitary LN metastasis, SLNM) and N1b (2–3 positive LNs); however, in the current staging system N1a and N1b have been combined. Patients with SLNM might be a distinct subset of those with involved LNs, a subset without the high incidence of systematic disease and poor prognosis of patients with multiple metastases in LNs. In this study, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) registries to analyze the role of SLNM in the long-term survival of patients with CC and to assess the appropriateness of the N1 classification in the seventh edition of the TNM staging system.

Methods

The current SEER database consists of 17 population-based cancer registries that represent approximately 28% of the population of the United States. The SEER data contain no identifiers and are publicly available for studies of cancer-based epidemiology and health policy. The National Cancer Institute’s SEER*Stat software (Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute SEER*Stat software, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/seerstat) was used to identify patients who received a pathologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or signet-ring carcinoma of the CC (C18.0–19.9) between 1991 and 2005. Only CC as a single primary tumor was included in current study due to the available information for cause specific survival analysis in SEER database. Patients diagnosed after 2006 were excluded to ensure adequate duration of follow-up. Other exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete TNM staging, no LNs examined pathologically, more than three LNs with metastases (N2), synchronous distant metastases, patients who had died within 30 days of surgery, and age younger than 18 or older than 80 years. This study is based on public data from the SEER database: we obtained permission to access the research data files in the SEER program (reference number 12768-Nov2012). Because this study did not involve interaction with human subjects or use personal identifying information, informed consent was not required. The study was approved by the Review Board of Fudan University, Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.

Ethics statement

This study was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. Permission to access the research data files in the SEER program was obtained (reference number 12768-Nov2012).

Statistical analysis

Age, sex, race, extent of primary tumor invasion, total number of LNs examined, number of involved LNs, tumor grade, histological type of tumor, survival time, and cause of death were retrieved from the SEER database. All cases were restaged based on the AJCC-7 guidelines. The primary endpoint of this study, colon cancer cause-specific survival (CCSS), was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of cause-specific death. Deaths attributed to the cancer of interest were treated as events and deaths from other causes as censored observations. χ2 tests were used to test independence, and Student’s t-test to compare continuous data between the three groups (pN0, pN1a, and pN1b). Exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for proportions were calculated. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan–Meier estimates; differences between the curves were analyzed by the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to analyze correlations between risk factors and survival outcomes in T1-4 N0-1b patients. All statistical analyses were performed with the statistical software package SPSS for Windows, version 17 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at two-sided P < 0.05.

Results

Impact of SLNM on CC survival outcomes

We identified 86,674 eligible patients over the 15 years covered by the study. These comprised 61,696 patients with no LN metastases, 12,416 with SLNM, and 12,562 with two or three LN metastases. Relevant patient characteristics and pathological features are summarized in Table 1. LN status was correlated with age, race, pathological grading, histological type of tumor, number of LNs dissected, and pT stage.
Table 1

Characteristics of patients from SEER Database by LN involvement

 
Total
N0
N1a
N1b
P value
Characteristic(n = 86674)(n = 61696)(n = 12416)(n = 12562)
Media follow up (mo)
85
90
78
69
<0.001
 (IQR)
(54–121)
(62–124)
(39–116)
(30–108)
Years of diagnosis
 
 
 
 
0.102
 1988-1993
17214
12196
2489
2529
 
 1994-1999
24641
17436
3629
3576
 
 2000-2003
32064
17436
6298
6457
 
Sex
 
 
 
 
0.818
 Male
43210
30798
6177
6235
 
 Female
43464
30898
6239
39876327
 
Age
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 <60
27442
18170
4293
4439
 
 ≥60
59232
42986
8123
8123
 
Race
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 White
69850
50278
9667
9905
 
 Black
9407
6337
1574
1496
 
 Other
7154
4872
1145
1137
 
 Unknown
263
209
30
24
 
Pathological grading
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 High/moderate
41097
28840
6121
6136
 
 Poor/anaplastic
7723
4503
1434
1786
 
 Unknown
1750
1232
251
267
 
Histotype
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 Adenocarcinoma
76387
54697
10817
10873
 
 Mucinous cell
9667
6671
1480
1516
 
 Signet ring cell
486
239
96
151
 
T stage
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 T1
12141
11055
746
340
 
 T2
14570
11995
1531
1044
 
 T3
28192
18982
4532
4678
 
 T4a
27669
17195
4860
5614
 
 T4b
4102
2469
747
886
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
 
 
 
<0.001
 <12
47920
34671
6693
6556
 
 ≥12387542702557236006 
Characteristics of patients from SEER Database by LN involvement The median duration of follow-up was 85 months (range 54–121 months) and the overall 5-year CCSS was 83.0%. The 5-year CCSS of pN0 patients, patients with pN1a and patients with pN1b stage was 88.3% ± 0.1%, 74.6% ± 0.4%, and 65.1% ± 0.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in survival between pN0 patients and those with SLNM (P < 0.001), between patients with SLNM and with pN1b (P < 0.001), and between patients with pN0 and pN1b (P < 0.001). We then made a further comparison by pT stages and found significant differences between all five of them (P < 0.05) (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Survival curves in CC patients according to lymph node status. (a) pT1-4 stage N0 vs. N1a, χ = 1762.258, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 263.886, P < 0.001.(b) pT1 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 53.979, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 21.414, P < 0.001.(c) pT2 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 101.579, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 5.597, P = 0.02.(d) pT3 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 374.208, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 86.490, P < 0.001.(e) pT4a stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 420.664, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 71.364, P < 0.001.(f) pT4b stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 94.180, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 10.257, P = 0.001.

Survival curves in CC patients according to lymph node status. (a) pT1-4 stage N0 vs. N1a, χ = 1762.258, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 263.886, P < 0.001.(b) pT1 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 53.979, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 21.414, P < 0.001.(c) pT2 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 101.579, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 5.597, P = 0.02.(d) pT3 stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 374.208, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 86.490, P < 0.001.(e) pT4a stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 420.664, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 71.364, P < 0.001.(f) pT4b stage: N0 vs. N1a, χ = 94.180, P < 0.001; N1a vs. N1b, χ = 10.257, P = 0.001. According to univariate and multivariate survival analyses, pT stage, year of diagnosis, patient age, race, and LN status were significantly associated with CCSS in all patients. pT2-4a stage female patients had better CCSS than male patients. Tumor grade was an independent factor for CCSS in patients with pT1 and pT3-4b. Except in patients with pT1 stage, the number of LNs dissected was significantly associated with CCSS according to both univariate and multivariate survival analysis. However, histological type of tumor was not a prognostic factor according to both univariate and multivariate survival analyses (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).
Table 2

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT1 stage CC

 
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Variable5-year CCSLog rank χ 2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Years of diagnosis
 
15.944
<0.001
 
<0.001
 1988-1993
94.9%
 
 
Reference
 
 1994-1999
95.6%
 
 
0.815 (0.784-0.848)
 
 2000-2003
96.6%
 
 
0.692 (0.667-0.718)
 
Sex
 
0.706
0.401
 
NI
 Male
96.0%
 
 
 
 
 Female
96.2%
 
 
 
 
Age
 
45.295
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <60
97.6%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥60
95.3%
 
 
1.467 (1.419-1.516)
 
Race
 
16.447
<0.001
 
<0.001
 White
96.3%
 
 
Reference
 
 Black
93.4%
 
 
1.428 (1.152-1.770)
 
 Othera
97.6%
 
 
0.718 (0.528-0.976)
 
Grade
 
19.124
<0.001
 
<0.001
 High/moderate
96.2%
 
 
Reference
 
 Poor/anaplastic
93.1%
 
 
1.281 (1.234-1.330)
 
 Unknown
96.8%
 
 
0.871 (0.802-0.946)
 
Histotype
 
0.923
0.337
 
NI
 Adenocarcinoma
96.1%
 
 
 
 
Mucinous/signet ring cell
96.8%
 
 
 
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
0.413
0.520
 
NI
 <12
95.9%
 
 
 
 
 ≥12
96.5%
 
 
 
 
LNs status
 
221.646
<0.001
 
<0.001
 N0 (pI)
96.7%
 
 
0.456 (0.439-0.473)
 
 N1a
92.6%
 
 
Reference
 
 N1b83.2%  1.424 (1.365-1.486) 

aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown.

NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Table 3

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT2 stage CC

 
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Variable5-year CCSLog rank χ 2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Years of diagnosis
 
30.763
<0.001
 
<0.001
 1988-1993
90.9%
 
 
Reference
 
 1994-1999
92.0%
 
 
0.903 (0.789-1.033)
 
 2000-2003
93.6%
 
 
0.727 (0.637-0.830)
 
Sex
 
27.577
<0.001
 
<0.001
 Male
91.8%
 
 
Reference
 
 Female
93.5%
 
 
0.734 (0.664-0.812)
 
Age
 
77.274
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <60
95.4%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥60
91.5%
 
 
1.823 (1.612-2.061)
 
Race
 
35.396
<0.001
 
<0.001
 White
92.8%
 
 
Reference
 
 Black
89.6%
 
 
1.517 (1.306-1.762)
 
 Othera
94.9%
 
 
0.692 (0.558-0.858)
 
Grade
 
4.629
0.099
 
NI
 High/moderate
92.9%
 
 
 
 
 Poor/anaplastic
90.9%
 
 
 
 
 Unknown
91.4%
 
 
 
 
Histotype
 
0.190
0.663
 
NI
 Adenocarcinoma
92.9%
 
 
 
 
Mucinous/signet ring cell
92.5%
 
 
 
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
20.732
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <12
91.7%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥12
94.0%
 
 
0.846 (0.761-0.941)
 
LNs status
 
223.132
<0.001
 
0.002
 N0
94.2%
 
 
0.485 (0.423-0.556)
 
 N1a
87.2%
 
 
Reference
 
 N1b83.8%  1.270 (1.060-1.521) 

aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown.

NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT3 stage CC

 
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Variable5-year CCSLog rank χ 2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Years of diagnosis
 
39.995
<0.001
 
<0.001
 1988-1993
80.3%
 
 
Reference
 
 1994-1999
82.6%
 
 
0.874 (0.808-0.946)
 
 2000-2003
84.6%
 
 
0.820 (0.763-0.881)
 
Sex
 
25.387
<0.001
 
<0.001
 Male
82.7%
 
 
Reference
 
 Female
84.3%
 
 
0.855 (0.811-0.901)
 
Age
 
169.293
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <60
87.3%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥60
81.7%
 
 
1.542 (1.453-1.638)
 
Race
 
103.809
<0.001
 
<0.001
 White
84.1%
 
 
Reference
 
 Black
77.7%
 
 
1.461 (1.355-1.574)
 
 Othera
86.2%
 
 
0.801 (0.733-0.896)
 
Grade
 
15.823
<0.001
 
0.032
 High/moderate
84.0%
 
 
Reference
 
 Poor/anaplastic
80.8%
 
 
1.098 (1.024-1.178)
 
 Unknown
83.5%
 
 
1.003 (0.851-1.182)
 
Histotype
 
1.212
0.271
 
NI
 Adenocarcinoma
83.5%
 
 
 
 
Mucinous/signet ring cell
83.8%
 
 
 
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
270.983
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <12
80.0%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥12
86.8%
 
 
0.668 (0.633-0.705)
 
LNs status
 
1209.713
<0.001
 
<0.001
 N0 (pIIA)
88.4%
 
 
0.510 (0.476-0.546)
 
 N1a
77.8%
 
 
Reference
 
 N1b69.4%  1.449 (1.334-1.561) 

aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown.

NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Table 5

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT4a stage CC

 
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Variable5-year CCSLog rank χ 2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Years of diagnosis
 
61.405
<0.001
 
<0.001
 1988-1993
72.8%
 
 
Reference
 
 1994-1999
77.1%
 
 
0.836 (0.792-0.883)
 
 2000-2003
77.8%
 
 
0.848 (0.803-0.896)
 
Sex
 
35.224
<0.001
 
<0.001
 Male
75.1%
 
 
Reference
 
 Female
77.2%
 
 
0.859 (0.822-0.898)
 
Age
 
136.610
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <60
79.9%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥60
74.5%
 
 
1.383 (1.316-1.454)
 
Race
 
85.397
<0.001
 
<0.001
 White
76.7%
 
 
Reference
 
 Black
69.1%
 
 
1.357 (1.270-1.450)
 
 Othera
79.7%
 
 
0.845 (0.777-0.918)
 
Grade
 
52.978
<0.001
 
0.032
 High/moderate
77.3%
 
 
Reference
 
 Poor/anaplastic
71.5%
 
 
1.178 (1.116-1.244)
 
 Unknown
75.5%
 
 
1.053 (0.917-1.210)
 
Histotype
 
0.011
0.915
 
NI
 Adenocarcinoma
76.2%
 
 
 
 
Mucinous/signet ring cell
76.0%
 
 
 
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
266.370
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <12
72.4%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥12
80.4%
 
 
0.708 (0.676-0.740)
 
LNs status
 
1213.378
<0.001
 
<0.001
 N0 (pIIB)
82.7%
 
 
0.559 (0.528-0.592)
 
 N1a
69.9%
 
 
Reference
 
 N1b61.7%  1.317 (1.239-1.401) 

aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown.

NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Table 6

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT4b stage CC

 
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Variable5-year CCSLog rank χ 2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Years of diagnosis
 
37.575
<0.001
 
0.001
 1988-1993
44.4%
 
 
Reference
 
 1994-1999
49.2%
 
 
0.905 (0.807-1.014)
 
 2000-2003
55.7%
 
 
0.809 (0.726-0.902)
 
Sex
 
1.163
0.281
 
NI
 Male
51.9%
 
 
 
 
 Female
50.7%
 
 
 
 
Age
 
41.821
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <60
56.7%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥60
48.0%
 
 
1.329 (1.213-1.456)
 
Race
 
19.460
<0.001
 
<0.001
 White
52.0%
 
 
Reference
 
 Black
42.3%
 
 
1.337 (1.175-1.522)
 
 Othera
56.4%
 
 
0.920 (0.781-1.084)
 
Grade
 
48.208
<0.001
 
<0.001
 High/moderate
54.3%
 
 
Reference
 
 Poor/anaplastic
44.8%
 
 
1.343 (1.219-1.479)
 
 Unknown
41.7%
 
 
1.324 (1.094-1.601)
 
Histotype
 
0.024
0.877
 
NI
 Adenocarcinoma
51.2%
 
 
 
 
Mucinous/signet ring cell
51.4%
 
 
 
 
No. of LNs dissected
 
158.496
<0.001
 
<0.001
 <12
42.4%
 
 
Reference
 
 ≥12
60.4%
 
 
0.598 (0.548-0.653)
 
LNs status
 
1213.378
<0.001
 
<0.001
 N0 (pIIC)
60.6%
 
 
0.596 (0.534-0.666)
 
 N1a
40.5%
 
 
Reference
 
 N1b34.1%  1.201 (1.062-1.358) 

aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown.

NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT1 stage CC aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown. NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT2 stage CC aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown. NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT3 stage CC aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown. NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT4a stage CC aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown. NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses by pN stage in patients with pT4b stage CC aOther includes American Indian/Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and unknown. NI: not included in multivariate survival analyses.

Comparison of CCSS between patients with pT1-4aN1a and those with pII stage CC

As presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the 5-year CCSS of patients with pIIA, pIIB, and pIIC CC were 88.40%, 82.70%, and 60.60%, respectively, all being lower than that of those with pT1N1a (92.60%). The 5-year CCSS of patients with pIIB and pIIC CC was lower than that of those with pT2N1a (87.20%) and that of patients with pIIC lower than that of those with pT3N1a (69.90%). According to AJCC-7 T classification in stage III, we made statistical comparison among pIIA-C, pT1-2N1a, pT1-2N1b, pT3-4aN1a, pT3-4aN1b, pT4bN1a and pT4bN1b to know whether there were significant differences in CCSS. According to multivariate analysis, the CCSS of patients with pT1-2N1a was similar to that of those with pIIA stage disease (HR, 0.937; 95% CI, 0.838–1.049; P = 0.259, using pIIA stage as the reference). Patients with stage pIIB disease had lower 5-year CCSS than those with pT1-2N1a (HR, 0.677; 95% CI, 0.606–0.757; P < 0.001, using stage pIIB as the reference) but similar 5-year CCSS to those with pT1-2N1b disease (HR, 0.971; 95% CI, 0.861–1.096; P = 0.634). Patients with stage pIIC disease had significantly lower 5-year CCSS than those with pT1-2N1a (HR, 0.254; 95% CI, 0.224–0.287; P < 0.001, using stage pIIC as the reference) and those with pT3-4aN1a (HR, 0.601; 95% CI, 0.560–0.645; P < 0.001), but higher 5-year CCSS than those with pT4bN1a disease (HR, 1.761; 95% CI, 1.576–1.966; P < 0.001) (Table 7).
Table 7

Comparison of 5-year CCSS of patients with SLNM and pII stage CC

VariableHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI) 
pTNM stage
 
<0.001
 
<0.001
 
<0.001
 IIA
Reference
 
0.723 (0.688-0.759)
<0.001
0.271 (0.252-0.290)
<0.001
 IIB
1.384 (1.317-1.453)
<0.001
Reference
 
0.374 (0.350-0.401)
<0.001
 IIC
3.695 (3.443-3.966)
<0.001
2.671 (2.495-2.859)
<0.001
Reference
 
 T1-2N1a
0.937 (0.838-1.049)
0.259
0.677 (0.606-0.757)
<0.001
0.254 (0.224-0.287)
<0.001
 T3-4aN1a
2.221 (2.109-2.339)
<0.001
1.605 (1.529-1.685)
<0.001
0.601 (0.560-0.645)
<0.001
 T4bN1a
6.506 (5.886-7.192)
<0.001
4.703 (4.262-5.189)
<0.001
1.761 (1.576-1.966)
<0.001
 T1-2N1b
1.344 (1.189-1.518)
<0.001
0.971 (0.861-1.096)
0.634
0.364 (0.319-0.414)
<0.001
 T3-4aN1b
3.060 (2.915-3.211)
<0.001
2.212 (2.115-2.312)
<0.001
0.828 (0.774-0.886)
<0.001
 T4bN1b8.011 (7.328-8.757)<0.0015.790 (5.307-6.317)<0.0012.168 (1.961-2.397)<0.001

P values refer to comparison between each group and the reference group and were adjusted for year of diagnosis, age, sex, pathological grading, histological type of tumor, and number of LNs dissected as covariates.

Comparison of 5-year CCSS of patients with SLNM and pII stage CC P values refer to comparison between each group and the reference group and were adjusted for year of diagnosis, age, sex, pathological grading, histological type of tumor, and number of LNs dissected as covariates.

Discussion

LN metastasis is a critical predictor of disease recurrence and CCSS, and therefore an important determinant of postoperative therapy [8]. Various variables, including pathological tumor stage, tumor grade, and degree of differentiation, have been identified as being associated with LN metastases [9,10]. In this study, we found that patients’ age, race, pathological grading, histological type of tumor, pT stage and number of LNs dissected provided risk stratification for patients with LN metastasis. Tumors with solitary positive node always mean more deep tumors and worsen grading than those with negative LNs, and the seventh edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual for colon classified any pT stage with solitary positive node into pIII or pIV, both which means worsen survival outcomes. Patients with esophageal cancer and SLNM have been considered a distinct prognostic subgroup with cancer outcomes closer to that of patients with node-negative disease and better than any other node-positive subgroup [11]. It has even been suggested that there is no survival difference between patients with SLNM and those with N0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; that is, SLNM does not affect the prognosis [12]. Bardia et al. [13] reported that six rectal adenocarcinoma patients with a solitary inguinal LN metastasis survived a mean of 42 months from diagnosis, three of the six patients still being alive after a mean duration of 40 months of follow-up when the article was accepted for publication. It is important to investigate the prognosis of patients with SLNM; the presence of multiple LN metastases is already known to be associated with systematic disease and poor prognosis [14]. However, thus far no studies have investigated the prognosis of CC patients with SLNM. In this study we analyzed the SEER data of 86,674 CC patients and found significant differences in survival between patients with SLNM and those with pN1b disease, verifying our hypothesis that SLNM is the earliest form of LN invasion and has heterogeneous outcomes. Soni et al. confirmed the sentinel node as the only site of metastasis in 41% of node-positive patients [10] and considered that the patients with SLNM did not have systemic disease. We further investigated survival differences by T stage category and found that patients with SLNM in all five pT stages had a significantly longer 5-year CCSS than did pN1b patients, indicating that CC with a SLNM may have an inherently favorable biologic character. Of interest is that, in our study, the 5-year CCSS of patients with pT1N1a CC was 92.6%, which is higher than that of those with pIIA (88.4%). The 5-year CCSS of patients with pT1-2N1a stage was similar to that of those with stage pIIA, but significantly greater than that of those with pIIB disease. Patients with pT3-4N1a disease had a better 5-year CCSS than those with pIIC. What could explain why patients with SLNM have a better CCSS than those with no LN metastases? We postulate that the major reasons are incomplete surgical resection and/or inadequate node sampling, resulting in inaccurate TNM staging. In the United States, more than 60% of colon cancer is under-staged after surgery [15]. At least 12 examined LNs is the benchmark for accurately ascertaining pathological node stage. Numerous observational studies of the impact of the number of LNs retrieved in patients with CC have shown a clear survival benefit with increasing numbers of LNs examined, especially in stage II patients [16-18]; our findings are consistent with these data. The more nodes that are examined and found negative, the more likely that a stage II patient is really node-negative, whereas lower nodal counts increase the risk that a node-positive patient will be misclassified as node-negative. When the technique of sentinel lymph node mapping is used, there is a 15% absolute increase in nodal positivity [10]. Such under-staging leads to under-treatment: many under-staged patients do not receive the adjuvant chemotherapy that is essential for survival benefit. About 15% to 20% of stage I/II colon patients develop recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis [19]. The benefits of increased nodal counts in node-positive patients remain controversial. Because we used the number of LNs dissected as a co-variable in our univariate and multivariate survival analyses, our findings suggest that SLNM CC has inherently favorable biologic behavior. Despite this, patients with positive LNs are routinely referred for adjuvant therapy [20]. NCCN guidelines (version I.2014) recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for stage pIII CC patients, including those with stage pT1-2N1a, but do not recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for stage pII patients who are assessed as low risk. Many physicians assume that pII stage patients have a better CCSS than pIII patients. Also patients with pII stage are less willing to undergo chemotherapy than pIII stage patients in clinical practice [21,22]. Thus, stage pT1-2N1a CC patients may be over-treated and stage pII patients under-treated. Unfortunately, because information about chemotherapy is not available in the SEER database, we were not able to analyze this issue further. Postoperative adjuvant treatment with fluorouracil and levamisole reportedly reduces the mortality rate by more than 30% in patients with stage III CC [23-25]. However, with CCSS as high as 92.6% in patients with pT1N1a stage disease, does adjuvant chemotherapy benefit all patients in this subgroup? AJCC staging was initiated to assess survival and guide clinical practice; we believe it should emphasize the distinctive characteristics of patients with SLNM. Although this is a large population-based study evaluating the subgroup of CC patients with SLNM, it has several potential limitations. First, the SEER database lacks data concerning several important tumor characteristics (e.g., perineural and lymphovascular invasion), chemotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant), and patient outcome (recurrence and metastasis). Thus, our analyses could not adjust for these potential confounding factors. Second, there may be minor misclassification of pT4 stage. In the first years of this century, the AJCC defined pT4a as CCs infiltrating adjacent organs or structures without perforation of visceral peritoneum and pT4b as those perforating the visceral peritoneum [26]. However, in the 7th AJCC edition, a CC is classified as pT4a when it infiltrates the serosa and as pT4b when it infiltrates adjacent organs: this may influence the classification of pT4a and T4b CCSS. Third, because SEER data provide no information about the distribution of SLNM, we could not tell whether a SLNM was a skip metastasis and therefore could not ascertain whether there is a difference in survival between skip and no skip groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study shows that patients with SLNM have a better 5-year CCSS than patients with pN1b disease. Patients with pT1-2N1a stage and those with p IIA have a similar 5-year CCSS. Patients with pT3-4aN1a stage have a higher 5-year CCSS rate than those with pIIC disease. The overwhelming advantage in long-term survival of CC patients with SLNM over those with pN1b stage warrants careful attention in clinical practice and TNM stage revision.

Abbreviations

AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer; CCSS: colorectal cancer cause-specific survival rate; CRC: colorectal cancer; CC: colon cancer; LN: lymph node; NCCN: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; SEER: National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; SLNM: solitary lymph node metastasis.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

QGL and SJC designed the study. YWW and DWL provided the databases. QGL, YWW, GXC and SJC assembled and analyzed the data. QGL, GXC and YWW wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/368/prepub
  26 in total

1.  Therapeutic strategy for esophageal cancer based on solitary lymph node metastasis.

Authors:  Chikara Kunisaki; Hrochika Makino; Jun Kimura; Takashi Oshima; Shoichi Fujii; Ryo Takagawa; Takashi Kosaka; Hidetaka Ono; Hirotoshi Akiyama; Itaru Endo
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct

2.  Comparison of nodal positivity between SLNM vs conventional surgery in colon cancer patients with <12 and ≥12 lymph nodes harvested.

Authors:  Mehul Soni; David Wiese; Alpesh Korant; Saad Sirop; Bishan Chakravarty; Adam Gayar; Anton Bilchik; Thomas Beutler; David Ratz; Sukamal Saha
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Clinical nodal staging scores for bladder cancer: a proposal for preoperative risk assessment.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Behfar Ehdaie; Michael Rink; Eugene K Cha; Robert S Svatek; Thomas F Chromecki; Harun Fajkovic; Giacomo Novara; Scott G David; Siamak Daneshmand; Yves Fradet; Yair Lotan; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Thomas Clozel; Patrick J Bastian; Wassim Kassouf; Hans-Martin Fritsche; Maximilian Burger; Jonathan I Izawa; Derya Tilki; Firas Abdollah; Felix K Chun; Guru Sonpavde; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Douglas S Scherr; Mithat Gonen
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  T4N0 colon cancer has oncologic outcomes comparable to stage III in a specialized center.

Authors:  Matteo Rottoli; Luca Stocchi; David W Dietz
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Lymph node ratio as determined by the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts survival in stage III colon cancer.

Authors:  Kwang Dae Hong; Sun Il Lee; Hong Young Moon
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  [Prevalence trend of colorectal cancer in 10 cities and counties in China from 1988 to 2002].

Authors:  Tao Lei; Wan-Qing Chen; Si-Wei Zhang; Tong-Hai Lei; Qian Ying; Zhao-Yi He; Xiang-Hui Wang
Journal:  Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi       Date:  2009-06

7.  Revised TN categorization for colon cancer based on national survival outcomes data.

Authors:  Leonard L Gunderson; John Milburn Jessup; Daniel J Sargent; Frederick L Greene; Andrew K Stewart
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-30       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Predicting systemic disease in patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy: a multinational study on the significance of the number of involved lymph nodes.

Authors:  Christian G Peyre; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Jan J B Van Lanschot; Arnulf Hölscher; Simon Law; Alberto Ruol; Ermanno Ancona; S Michael Griffin; Nasser K Altorki; Thomas W Rice; John Wong; Toni Lerut; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  J J Y Sung; J Y W Lau; G P Young; Y Sano; H M Chiu; J S Byeon; K G Yeoh; K L Goh; J Sollano; R Rerknimitr; T Matsuda; K C Wu; S Ng; S Y Leung; G Makharia; V H Chong; K Y Ho; D Brooks; D A Lieberman; F K L Chan
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Is a solitary inguinal lymph node metastasis from adenocarcinoma of the rectum really a metastasis?

Authors:  A Bardia; E Greeno; R Miller; S Alberts; E Dozois; M Haddock; P Limburg
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 3.788

View more
  2 in total

1.  Negative to positive lymph node ratio is a superior predictor than traditional lymph node status in stage III colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Qingguo Li; Lei Liang; Huixun Jia; Xinxiang Li; Ye Xu; Ji Zhu; Sanjun Cai
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-11-01

2.  Lymph node status as a prognostic factor after palliative resection of primary tumor for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Qingguo Li; Changjian Wang; Yaqi Li; Xinxiang Li; Ye Xu; Guoxiang Cai; Peng Lian; Sanjun Cai
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-18
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.