A Gill1, A Brunson1, P Lara1, V Khatri2, T J Semrad3. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. Electronic address: thomas.semrad@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In contrast to colon cancer, the implications of reduced lymph node retrieval in rectal cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using the California Cancer Registry, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 4790 patients with stage I - III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2000 to 2007 who underwent tri-modality therapy. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, T-stage, and lymph node numbers, we evaluated rectal cancer specific survival (RC-SS) in neoadjuvant and adjuvant cohorts in the overall population and amongst those without involved lymph nodes (pN0). RESULTS: Sixty one percent of evaluable patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Although there was no difference in RC-SS between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation cohorts, the median number of lymph nodes examined was reduced after neoadjuvant therapy (8 vs. 11, p < 0.0001). Positive lymph nodes were associated with worse RC-SS regardless of sequence, although the effect was numerically stronger for residual lymph nodes in the neoadjuvant cohort. Compared to at least 12, eight or fewer lymph nodes retrieved was associated with worse outcome in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant cohorts. However, no association between reduced lymph nodes examined and RC-SS was seen in the neoadjuvant cohort when the analysis was restricted to pN0 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of rectal cancer patients treated with tri-modality therapy, reduced lymph node retrieval in node negative patients did not provide additional prognostic information in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: In contrast to colon cancer, the implications of reduced lymph node retrieval in rectal cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using the California Cancer Registry, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 4790 patients with stage I - III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2000 to 2007 who underwent tri-modality therapy. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, T-stage, and lymph node numbers, we evaluated rectal cancer specific survival (RC-SS) in neoadjuvant and adjuvant cohorts in the overall population and amongst those without involved lymph nodes (pN0). RESULTS: Sixty one percent of evaluable patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Although there was no difference in RC-SS between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation cohorts, the median number of lymph nodes examined was reduced after neoadjuvant therapy (8 vs. 11, p < 0.0001). Positive lymph nodes were associated with worse RC-SS regardless of sequence, although the effect was numerically stronger for residual lymph nodes in the neoadjuvant cohort. Compared to at least 12, eight or fewer lymph nodes retrieved was associated with worse outcome in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant cohorts. However, no association between reduced lymph nodes examined and RC-SS was seen in the neoadjuvant cohort when the analysis was restricted to pN0 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of rectal cancerpatients treated with tri-modality therapy, reduced lymph node retrieval in node negative patients did not provide additional prognostic information in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
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: Leopoldo Sarli; Giovanni Bader; Domenico Iusco; Carlo Salvemini; Davide Di Mauro; Antonio Mazzeo; Gabriele Regina; Luigi Roncoroni Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: C C Compton; L P Fielding; L J Burgart; B Conley; H S Cooper; S R Hamilton; M E Hammond; D E Henson; R V Hutter; R B Nagle; M L Nielsen; D J Sargent; C R Taylor; M Welton; C Willett Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Anand Govindarajan; Mithat Gönen; Martin R Weiser; Jinru Shia; Larissa K Temple; Jose G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Garrett M Nash Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcin Zeman; Marek Czarnecki; Ewa Chmielik; Adam Idasiak; Władysław Skałba; Mirosław Strączyński; Piotr J Paul; Agnieszka Czarniecka Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.754
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