Literature DB >> 26934317

Tumor deposits counted as positive lymph nodes in TNM staging for advanced colorectal cancer: a retrospective multicenter study.

Jun Li1, Shengke Yang2, Junjie Hu3, Hao Liu4, Feng Du5, Jie Yin6, Sai Liu7, Ci Li8, Shasha Xing9, Jiatian Yuan1, Bo Lv1, Jun Fan1, Shusheng Leng1, Xin Zhang1, Bing Wang1.   

Abstract

We investigated the possibility of counting tumor deposits (TDs) as positive lymph nodes (pLNs) in the pN category and evaluated its prognostic value for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. A new pN category (npN category) was calculated using the numbers of pLNs plus TDs. The npN category included 4 tiers: npN1a (1 tumor node), npN1b (2-3 tumor nodes), npN2a (4-6 tumor nodes), and npN2b (≥7 tumor nodes). We identified 4,121 locally advanced CRC patients, including 717 (11.02%) cases with TDs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the disease-free and overall survival (DFS and OS) for npN and pN categories. Multivariate analysis showed that the npN and pN categories were both independent prognostic factors for DFS (HR 1.614, 95% CI 1.541 to 1.673; HR 1.604, 95% CI 1.533 to 1.679) and OS (HR 1.633, 95% CI 1.550 to 1.720; HR 1.470, 95% CI 1.410 to 1.532). However, the npN category was superior to the pN category by Harrell's C statistic. We conclude that it is thus feasible to consider TDs as positive lymph nodes in the pN category when evaluating the prognoses of CRC patients, and the npN category is potentially superior to the TNM (7th edition) pN category for predicting DFS and OS among advanced CRC patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colorectal cancer; lymph nodes; tumor deposits

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26934317      PMCID: PMC4951287          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7756

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

The TNM staging system for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been changed several times on the basis of a small expert panel consensus. The 5th edition TNM (TNM5) classification was the first to evaluate tumor deposits (TDs) and proposed the 3-mm rule in 1997 [1, 2]. The next edition (TNM6) concerned the presence of TDs in mesorectal and pericolic fat with the primary tumor, and defined TDs as positive lymph nodes (pLNs) when they had the form and smooth contour of lymph nodes (LNs) while irregular TDs with venous invasion remained in the T category [3, 4]. Recently, the presence of TDs has been reported as an important prognostic factor [5-9]. TDs were again taken into account in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th edition TNM classification (TNM7) for CRC, and a new pN1c category was proposed which states that T1 and T2 lesions that lack regional positive lymph node(s) but have tumor deposit(s) will be classified in addition as pN1c. However, it is not consistent in that in pN1c is also an option for pT3/4a tumors in the CRC staging table [10]. Despite the fact that TNM7 states that the number of TDs should be counted according to this categorization strategy, it does not point out the association of the number of TDs with stage III. There are also no clear guidelines on how to classify TDs in patients with pLNs and TDs simultaneously. This potentially impacts the accuracy of the classification and evaluation of the prognosis of CRC patients. Recently, there has been discussion of the feasibility of TDs being counted as positive lymph nodes in the TNM staging system for CRC. Belt EJ et al. [11] declared lymph node negative CRC (stage II) with TDs should be classified and treated as stage III. Song YX et al. [5] reported that the counting of TDs as pLNs in the TNM staging system is potentially superior to the classification in the TNM7 to assess prognosis and survival for CRC patients. However, both of these studies included small numbers of patients (870 and 513 cases, respectively). In addition, in TNM7 gastric cancer staging, pathologic assessment of the regional pLNs entails their removal and histologic examination to evaluate the total number of nodes and TDs without evidence of residual LN tissue that were considered as pLN [12]. Thus, it is necessary to provide more effective data to validate the feasibility of counting the number of TDs as pLNs in the TNM classification criteria. Here, we collected large-scale and multicenter data consisting of 4,121 stage II and III CRC patients who received initial radical surgery in order to investigate whether TDs can be counted as metastatic LNs using the AJCC TNM7 staging system for stage III CRC by calculating and comparing the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 4,456 patients with CRC experienced initial radical surgery. According to the exclusion criteria, 180 cases with pTis/T1 stage, 45 with simultaneous distant metastasis, and 110 with other reasons were excluded. Finally, 4,121 cases were included in this retrospective study.

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients

In total, we identified 17.4% (717/4,121) of patients with TDs. The male: female ratio was 1.33:1 (2,352/1,769). The median age was 58.0 ± 12.1 years (range: 14-87). Clinicopathological features are listed in Table 1. In pN category (7th), the percentages of pN0-2b were 50.2%, 12.9%, 13.1%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 7.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). By contrast, the percentages of npN0-2b were 50.2%, 12.8%, 15.3%, 12.0% and 9.7%, respectively (P < 0.0001). TDs were associated with preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels, pT or pN category, npN category, differentiation grade, pathological category, and histological type (all P < 0.05). Patients with and without TDs were similar with respect to gender, age, tumor location (colon vs. rectum), and tumor size (diameter) (all P > 0.05). Additionally, the rates of patients with or without TDs who received adjuvant therapy were 17.0% and 18.2% (P = 0.343).
Table 1

Association of TDs with clinical and pathological characteristics

VariableAll Patients (n = 4121)Patients with TDs (n = 717)X2P
No.%No.%
Gender
Male235257.141117.50.0220.882
Female176942.930617.3
Age, year
≤60231256.140717.60.1540.695
>60180943.931017.1
Tumor location
Colon144935.227819.20.510.475
Rectum267164.843916.4
Tumor size, diameter
≤5.0 cm286669.550817.70.680.410
>5.0 cm125430.420916.7
Preoperative CEA levels
<5.0 ng/ml247960.236014.539.429<0.0001
≥5.0 ng/ml116128.223820.5
Unknown48111.711924.7
Preoperative CA199 levels
<29.0 u/ml282068.446516.58.5650.014
≥29.0 u/ml45911.110122
Unknown84220.415117.9
pT category (7th)
pT 21283.143.166.154<0.0001
pT 3285169.232311.3
pT 4224254.439017.4
pN category (7th)
pN 0207050.20061.773<0.0001
pN 1a53312.910018.8
pN 1b53913.112423
pN 1c2826.8282100
pN 2a3749.18021.4
pN 2b3237.813140.6
npN category
npN 0207050.200128.185<0.0001
npN 1a52612.89317.7
npN 1b62915.321434
npN 2a4951220140.6
npN 2b4019.720952.1
Venous invasion
Yes2686.58732.570.306<0.0001
No385393.563016.4
Lymphatic invasion
Yes260.61246.211.5280.001
No409599.470517.2
Differentiation grade
Well45211439.590.633<0.0001
Moderately32137852316.3
Poorly45611.114632
Pathological category
Papillary or tubular adenocarcinoma385693.666017.18.9910.003
Mucinous adenocarcinoma2205.33817.3
Signet ring cell cancer451.11942.2
Histological type
Protrude273366.347717.517.184<0.0001
Ulcer115127.917715.4
Infiltrative2375.86326.6
Adjuvant therapy
Yes279667.8476170.8990.343
No132532.224118.2

TDs resulted in stage migration

A total of 1,798 TDs were detected in 717 (17.4%) patients according to the 3-mm (TNM5) and contour (TNM6) rules. The mean TD diameter was 8.5 ± 3.2 mm (range: 3-24 mm). By changing the definition of TDs to being counted as positive LNs, stage migration was likely to happen. Not surprisingly, the presence of TDs was associated with advanced npN category as compared to pN category (Table 2). TDs also more often presented with higher pT category (Table 1). In Table 2, we list stage migrations resulting from changes in the definition of TDs. Upstaging occurred in 330 of 717 patients (46.0%) with TDs that were in the pN category.
Table 2

pN stage migration according to TDs counted as pLNs

pN CategorynpN CategorySum
npN1anpN1bnpN2anpN2b
pN1a43374188533
pN1b4586318539
pN1c9397857282
pN2a32945374
pN2b323323
Sum5266294954012051

npN as a prognostic factor for DFS and OS

During follow-up, a total of 1215 patients (29.5%) suffered failure including 351 (8.5%) with local recurrence (LR), 973 (23.6%) with distant metastasis (DM) and 109 (2.6%) with both LR and DM. The 5-year DFS and OS rates for all 4,121 patients were 69.5% and 75.2%. The clinical and pathological data including the number of LR, DM, and all failures are listed in Table 2. The 5-year DFS rates for npN0-2b were 83.6%, 72.4%, 65.6%, 45.7% and 26.0%, respectively (P < 0.0001). By contrast, the 5-year DFS rates for pN0-2b were 83.6%, 71.4%, 57.8%, 69.9%, 39.5%, and 25.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The 5-year OS for npN0-2b were 87.9%, 76.2%, 69.1%, 57.9% and 37.1%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Compared to the npN category, the 5-year OS for pN0-2b were 87.9%, 74.3%%, 64.8%, 75.2%,50.1%, and 32.9%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Univariate analysis showed that the preoperative CEA or CA199 levels, pT, pN, npN, TDs, venous or lymphatic invasion, differentiation grade, pathological category and histological type were all correlated with DFS and OS (all P < 0.0001). Additionally, age and adjuvant chemotherapy were prognostic factors for OS but not DFS. The DFS and OS curves for both npN and pN are shown in Figure 1. Considering the fact that the npN category can be considered as an adjusted classification of the pN category, making the pN and npN categories highly correlated, multivariate models for all patients were calculated separately for each variable to avoid potential bias (Tables 4, 5). As the result, both the npN and pN categories were identified as independent prognostic factors for DFS (HR 1.614, 95% CI 1.541 to 1.673; HR 1.604, 95% CI 1.533 to 1.679) and OS (HR 1.633, 95% CI 1.550 to 1.720; HR 1.470, 95% CI 1.410 to 1.532) by multivariate analyses (all P < 0.0001).
Figure 1

The DFS and OS curves for npN and pN categories

1A. The 5-year DFS rates of npN0-2b were 83.6%, 72.4%, 65.6%, 45.7%, 26.0%,respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from npN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). 1B. The 5-year DFS rates of pN0-2b were 83.6%, 71.4%, 57.8%, 69.9%, 39.5%, and 25.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). pN1a and 1c had similar 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.862). 1C. The 5-year OS rates of npN0-2b were 87.9%, 76.2%, 69.1%, 57.9% and 37.1%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from npN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). 1D. The 5-year OS rates of pN0-2b were 87.9%, 74.3%, 64.8%, 75.2%, 50.1% and 32.9%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from pN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). Of note, pN1c had a similar 5-year OS rate with pN1a (P = 0.303).

Table 4

Multivariate analysis for 5-year DFS and OS when npN category enrolled

Variables5-Year DFS5-Year OS
HR95.0% CIPHR95.0% CIP
Age1.371(1.181 to 1.592)<0.0001
Preoperative CEA0.901(0.792 to 1.024)0.1110.970(0.837 to 1.123)0.683
PreoperativeCA1990.987(0.844 to 1.154)0.8670.843(0.711 to 0.994)0.041
pT category1.461(1.280 to 1.668)<0.00011.533(1.312 to 1.791)<0.0001
pN category1.367(1.313 to 1.422)<0.00011.462(1.398 to 1.529)<0.0001
TDs0.591(0.509 to 0.687)<0.00011.103(1.039 to 1.200)0.036
Venous invasion0.729(0.594 to 0.895)0.0030.816(0.648to 1.027)0.083
Lymphatic invasion0.455(0.276 to 0.750)0.0020.555(0.323 to 0.954)0.033
Differentiation grade1.387(1.209 to 1.591)<0.00011.425(1.222 to 1.663)<0.0001
Pathological category1.112(1.006 to 1.229)0.0371.160(1.036 to 1.298)0.010
Histological type0.924(0.774 to 1.103)0.3811.131(0.940 to 1.361)0.193
Adjuvant Chemotherapy1.660(1.413 to 1.950)<0.0001
Table 5

Multivariate analysis for 5-year DFS and OS when pN category enrolled

Variables5-Year DFS5-Year OS
HR95.0% CIPHR95.0% CIP
Age1.346(1.160 to 1.563)<0.0001
Preoperative CEA0.901(0.793 to 1.023)0.1080.950(0.822 to 1.099)0.493
Preoperative CA1990.976(0.837 to 1.138)0.7550.839(0.709 to 0.993)0.041
pT category1.448(1.270 to 1.651)0.0001.517(1.300 to 1.769)<0.0001
npN category1.519(1.444 to 1.598)<0.00011.653(1.560 to 1.752)<0.0001
TDs0.665(0.570 to 0.775)<0.00011.108(1.007 to 1.202)0.032
Venous invasion0.730(0.595 to 0.897)0.0030.791(0.629 to 0.995)0.045
Lymphatic invasion0.466(0.283 to 0.769)0.0030.534(0.311 to 0.917)0.023
Differentiation grade1.333(1.163 to 1.529)<0.00011.384(1.187 to 1.613)<0.0001
Pathological category1.094(0.989 to 1.210)0.0821.140(1.108 to 1.277)0.023
Histological type0.936(0.784 to 1.117)0.4631.139(0.947 to 1.371)0.168
Adjuvant Chemotherapy1.747(1.488 to 2.052)<0.0001

The DFS and OS curves for npN and pN categories

1A. The 5-year DFS rates of npN0-2b were 83.6%, 72.4%, 65.6%, 45.7%, 26.0%,respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from npN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). 1B. The 5-year DFS rates of pN0-2b were 83.6%, 71.4%, 57.8%, 69.9%, 39.5%, and 25.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). pN1a and 1c had similar 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.862). 1C. The 5-year OS rates of npN0-2b were 87.9%, 76.2%, 69.1%, 57.9% and 37.1%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from npN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). 1D. The 5-year OS rates of pN0-2b were 87.9%, 74.3%, 64.8%, 75.2%, 50.1% and 32.9%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the 5-year DFS rates of each group from pN 0 to 2b were different (all P < 0.05). Of note, pN1c had a similar 5-year OS rate with pN1a (P = 0.303). The pN and npN categories were calculated by Harrell's C statistic to identify which one had superior predictive capacity. The npN category (Harrell's C = 0.716, 95% CI: 0.709 to 0.728) was found to be superior to the pN category (Harrell's C = 0.707, 95% CI: 0.695 to 0.718) for DFS. Also, the npN category was a more accurate predictor than pN category for OS (Harrell's C = 719, 95% CI: 0.700 to 0.736; 712, 95% CI: 0.696 to 0.731, respectively). To identify whether one TD and one pLN had the same weight in patient outcome, we compared the 5-year DFS and OS rates for patients with pure pLNs with patients with pLNs plus TDs. The results are shown in Table 6 and indicate no prognostic heterogeneity meaning that TDs had the same weight as the pLNs (all P < 0.05).
Table 6

Influence of TDs on 5-year DFS and OS in subgroups of npN category

npN CategoryNo. of All PatientsAll Failure with TDsAll Failure without TDs5-Years DFS Rate5-Years OS Rate
No.%No.%
npN 1a5262729.00%11426.30%72.1% vs.73.6%76.0% vs.76.2%
npN 1b6297334.10%13432.30%65.4% vs.65.7%68.9% vs.69.9%
npN 2a49510753.20%14549.30%44.8% vs.46.3%57.3% vs.58.5%
npN 2b40115071.80%13369.30%25.4% vs.27.6%36.8% vs.37.5%

Note: the 5-year DFS rates of the subgroups with or without TDs in npN1a, 1b, 2a, 2b were similar (all P < 0.05), and the 5-year OS rates of the subgroups had the similar results (all P < 0.05).

Note: the 5-year DFS rates of the subgroups with or without TDs in npN1a, 1b, 2a, 2b were similar (all P < 0.05), and the 5-year OS rates of the subgroups had the similar results (all P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Changes in definitions of what should be considered as positive lymph nodes (pLNs) and tumor deposits (TDs) have been causing great confusion and having a large impact on patient prognosis and selection for postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Although tumor deposits are defined as focal aggregates of adenocarcinoma located in the pericolic or perirectal fat discontinuous with the primary tumor and unassociated with a lymph node, it is difficult to distinguish TDs and nodes. Thus, TNM5 proposed the 3-mm rule, which defined a tumor nodule > 3mm in diameter without histological evidence of residual lymph node tissue as a TD [1]. However, this rule was reported as being based on unpublished data, which were not substantiated. In TNM6, the new definition of TDs based on contour replaced the 3-mm rule, and defined TDs to be classified as pLNs when they had the form and smooth contour of lymph nodes, while irregular TDs were classified in the pT category and as venous invasion [3]. Still, this contour rule lacks support from clinical evidences and reproducibility is poor because of the absence of appropriate guidelines [8]. Currently, the TNM7 proposed a novel pN category (pN1c) in stage III in the absence of lymph node (LN) metastasis which states T1 and T2 lesions that lack regional positive lymph node(s) but have tumor deposit(s) be classified in addition as pN1c, though it is not consistent in that in pN1c is also an option for pT3/4a tumors in the CRC staging table [10]. However, this new edition does not propose guidelines on the definition of TDs, which might impact reproducibility because of subjective opinion from pathologists. Although the TNM staging system changed several times with lack of appropriate guidelines, it is still the most important determinant of prognosis in CRC and it is the basis for the patient management guidelines that influence most patient management decisions [5]. The prevalence of TDs ranges from 6% to 64% in CRC and 17% to 55% in colon cancer [13]. The TNM7 abandoned the 3-mm rule and retained the contour rule so that classification of TDs is left to the discretion of the pathologists and pN1c is designated for TDs. However, when we investigated the use of the new definition for TDs, we found that all studies selected TDs depending, in part, on the definition. In other words, TDs selection is still lacking in guidelines. Still, it is difficult to distinguish pLNs and TDs especially when nodes are replaced completely by tumor cells. In fact, the TNM7 gastric cancer staging system has considered TDs as metastatic lymph nodes and the number of TDs was included for pathologic staging [12]. Additionally, TDs were considered as pLNs in Japanese classification of CRC [14]. Song YX et al [5] declared that tumor deposits can be counted as metastatic lymph nodes in TNM staging system for CRC. Based on the above evidence, we attempted to consider all TDs as pLNs and re-designate the pN category. In the present study, we considered all TDs as pLNs and the npN category was determined by the number of pLNs plus TDs. By using the npN category, we simplified the node category and investigated the feasibility and effects. The 5-year DFS and OS rates of patients with or without TDs were 44.6% vs. 74.9% and 57.7% vs. 78.9% (P < 0.0001, respectively), which indicatapproved that patients with TDs had a worse DFS and OS compared with patients without TDs. This result was similar with to a previous study [8]. By using univariateble and multivariateble analyses, we concluded that TDs could be potentially an independent and adverse prognostic factor for colorectal cancer. Of note, in multivariable analysis, we found that both the npN and pN category were independent predictors for long-term outcome, including DFS and OS in CRC. And then we declared that, however, the npN category was superior to the pN category for DFS (Harrell's C = 0.716, 95% CI: 0.709 to 0.728 vs. 0.707, 95% CI: 0.695 to 0.718) and OS (Harrell's C = 719, 95% CI: 0.700 to 0.736 vs. 0.712, 95% CI: 0.696 to 0.731). Thus, we proposed that the TDs can be counted as pLNs in TNM staging system and the npN category is feasible and superior to the pN category for predicting the long-term outcomes in CRC. The origins of TDs remain controversial. Some studies propose that 3 types of TDs can be identified. They define TDs as “vascular invasion type,” “TDs other than the vascular invasion type,” and “tumor deposits, extramural venous and perineural types of invasion” [15, 16]. Recent studies have declared strong correlations between the presence of TDs and vascular invasion [7, 17, 18]. However, in the present study, we did not differentiate between types of TDs and reported that 32.5% (87/268) of the TDs was with venous invasion, which was lower than previous studies. Besides, 46.2% (12/26) of the patients with TDs also had lymphatic invasion. In our study, we differentiated venous invasion from lymphatic invasion by hematoxylin-eosin (H-E) staining, which may reduce the accuracy of recognizing venous and lymphatic invasion. In fact, many other factors such as the histological sectioning, which is only a 2-demensional sample of the 3-demensional structure, could cause us to underestimate the association of TDs with vessels. Whether or not TDs should be considered pLNs or satellite tumor nodules for the purposes of staging may be difficult to determine. It is thus necessary and reasonable to consider TDs as pLNs. Using the npN category, pathologists and clinicians can simplify the TNM staging system and make suitable suggestions for patient postoperative treatment. The results from this study are constrained by all the flaws and biases inherent to a nonrandomized trial, although this study included large-scale and multicenter data. Additionally, there are no clear and regular guidelines on how to identify the TDs from lymph nodes, which also may potentially influence the conclusions. The ideal trial design to investigate TDs according to sections of whole specimens would be a prospective clinical trial, which may be helpful to get more reliable data. In sum, we found that it was feasible to consider TDs as positive lymph nodes in the pN category for evaluating the prognoses of CRC patients, and the npN category was potentially superior to the 7th pN category for predicting the disease-free and overall survival of advanced CRC patients. Whether the npN category has any additional significant practical impact on patients management needs more data to validate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ethics considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the appropriate ethics committees of all participating study sites before the enrolment of patients started. Informed consent was obtained by the investigator at each center from all patients before patient enrollment.

Patients

A total of 4,121 patients with stage II and III colorectal adenocarcinoma who received an initial radical surgery were identified at seven study centers in China between January 2004 and December 2011, and all relevant data were retrospectively collected including age, gender, serum CEA and CA199 levels, date of surgery, location of the primary tumor (colon and rectal), date and site of recurrence, pathological result, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and cause of death (CRC related or other cause). We defined colon cancer including tumors locating in cecum to sigmoid colon, and rectal cancer containing tumors locating in rectum or rectosigmoid junction according to the definition from Chok KS et al. [19]. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT, resulting in less nodes detection in specimens); 2) patients with distant metastasis such as liver metastasis found pre- or perioperatively; 3) patients with multiple adenocarcinomas of colon and rectum; 4) patients with synchronous or metachronous tumors; 5) patients who had suffered from colorectal cancer before; 6) patients who died in the immediate postoperative period (within 1 month); 7) patients with positive circumferential resection margins; and 8) patients without complete pathological slides.

Treatments

All patients initially received R0 resection without preoperative radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. For rectal cancer patients, the standard total mesorectal excision was performed. After surgery, patients were treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy or not according to body situation and TNM staging system except some patients who rejected adjuvant therapy. Patients with rectal cancer received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (40-50Gy/2Gy/20-25F and Xeloda basically), while colon cancer patients were treated with Xeloda and 5-Fu regimens basically. 1325 patients did not received adjuvant therapy, including 83.1% (1101/1325) of patients who were in low risk, and other 16.9% (224/1325) who were in high risk (venous invasion, lymphatic invasion, poor differentiation, or advanced stage) but rejected adjuvant therapy (46.4%, 104/224), or were in poor body situation and could not tolerate adjuvant therapy (53.6%, 120/224).

Pathologic examination

Sections from all resected specimens were examined by local pathologists from seven hospitals. The standardized protocol included determination of the AJCC TNM classification, stage grouping, differentiation degree, histological type, pathological number of examined and involved lymph nodes, and presence or absence of lymphatic or venous invasion. All slides were reviewed for the presence of TDs, defined as either macroscopic or microscopic depositions of carcinoma, without any residual lymph node structures. TDs were assessed using the 3-mm (TNM5) and contour (TNM6) rules [7, 8]. For a regular tumor nodule, we classify it as a positive LN. For an irregular node without any residual tissues of LN we consider it as a TD if the diameter > 3mm measured by a ruler, otherwise, we consider the irregular node as pT3 if the diameter ≤3mm. The reference pathologist tested pathological sections and then recorded the findings in a standardized document.

Classification methods

All patients were classified depending on TNM7, and then we counted TDs as pLNs in a new pN category. In this study, the pN category which combined with the number of TDs was recorded as npN category [5].

Follow-up

The follow-up result was collected from all seven hospitals'database. The end point of follow-up was May 2015. The median time of follow-up was 66 months (range: 2-136 months).

Statistical analysis

Local recurrence and distant metastasis analyses were performed for all eligible patients who received R0 resection without distant metastasis found at time of surgery. All time-to-event end points were measured from date of radical surgery. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was calculated from radical resection to finding evidence of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 19). Differences were evaluated with the log-rank test. Analyses for local recurrence and distant metastasis were calculated as cumulative incidences. Mutivariate models were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. All significant variables in the univariate analysis were included in multivariate Cox regression models in a forward-step procedure. The variables were entered in the order according to clinical relevance into the regression models with increasing complexity, and significance was assessed using analysis of variance analysis. The predictive power of the individual models was evaluated using Harrell'C statistic. A model with perfect predictive capacity (sensitivity and specificity of 100%) would have a Harrell'C statistic of 1.00 and the highest Harrell'C statistic was chosen as the best model [20]. A two-sided p value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.
Table 3

Influence of different clinical and pathological factors on 5-year DFS and OS

VariableNo. of All patientsLocal RecurrenceDistant MetastasisAll Failure5-Years DFS RateP5-Year OS RateP
No.%No.%No.%
41213518.5%97323.6%121529.5%69.5%75.2%
Gender
Male23522199.3%55323.5%71330.3%68.7%0.08174.9%0.762
Female17691327.5%42024.7%50229.4%70.6%75.5%
Age, year
≤6023121737.5%53524.1%65229.2%71.5%0.08778.0%<0.0001
>6018091789.8%43824.2%56331.1%66.9%71.5%
Tumor location
Colon1449342.3%36425.1%38126.3%73.2%0.06576.1%0.132
Rectum267131711.9%60922.8%83431.2%67.4%74.7%
Tumor size, diameter
≤5.0 cm28662408.4%67023.4%83529.1%70.1%0.65475.8%0.251
>5.0 cm12541118.9%30324.1%38030.3%68.2%73.9%
Preoperative CEA levels
<5.0 ng/ml2479988.4%46318.7%61024.6%75.0%<0.000180.7%<0.0001
≥5.0 ng/ml11611988.0%40134.5%45439.1%58.6%64.3%
Unknown4815511.4%10922.7%15131.4%67.0%72.0%
Preoperative CA199 levels
<29.0 u/ml2820327.0%49020.8%60126.5%73.1%<0.000181.3%<0.0001
≥29.0 u/ml4591697.2%17939.0%19542.5%54.9%54.5%
Unknown842556.5%10912.9%15117.9%80.2%72.0%
pT category (7th)
pT 212886.2%2015.6%2620.3%78.5%<0.000182.8%<0.0001
pT 328511418.1%25314.4%35320.2%79.2%83.4%
pT 422422029.0%70031.2%83637.3%61.3%68.1%
pN category (7th)
pN 020701065.1%25212.2%33216.0%83.6%<0.000187.9%<0.0001
pN 1a533397.3%12122.7%14928.0%71.4%74.3%
pN 1b539438.0%18734.7%21539.1%57.8%64.8%
pN 1c2824214.9%4716.7%8730.9%69.9%75.2%
pN 2a3745615.0%17145.7%20755.3%39.5%50.1%
pN 2b3236520.1%19540.6%22569.7%25.8%32.9%
npN category
npN 020701065.1%25212.2%33216.0%83.6%<0.000187.9%<0.0001
npN 1a526326.1%11622.1%14126.8%72.4%76.2%
npN 1b629518.1%17928.5%20722.9%65.6%69.1%
npN 2a4957214.5%19840.0%25250.9%45.7%57.9%
npN 2b4019022.4%22856.9%28360.6%26.0%37.1%
Tumor deposits (TDs)
Positive71713118.3%28139.2%38954.3%44.6%<0.000157.7%<0.0001
Negative34042206.5%69220.3%82624.3%74.9%78.9%
Venous invasion
Yes2684717.5%13650.7%15758.6%36.8%<0.000145.7%<0.0001
No38533047.9%83721.7%105827.5%71.7%77.1%
Lymphatic invasion
Yes26830.8%1038.5%1661.5%29.2%<0.000135.6%<0.0001
No40953439.4%96323.5%119929.3%69.8%75.4%
Differentiation grade
Well452224.9%5411.9%7316.2%82.7%<0.000188.2%<0.0001
Moderately32132758.6%72522.6%92228.7%70.4%75.8%
Poorly4565411.8%19442.5%22048.2%50.0%57.8%
Pathological category
Papillary or tubular adenocarcinoma38563258.4%88823.0%112129.1%69.9%<0.000175.9%<0.0001
Mucinous adenocarcinoma220209.1%6328.6%6830.9%68.2%70.1%
Signet ring cell cancer45613.7%2249.9%2657.8%40.8%41.5%
Histological type
Protrude27332308.4%56120.5%72226.4%73.0%<0.000178.5%<0.0001
Ulcer1151988.5%32228.0%38633.5%64.8%70.1%
Infiltrative237239.7%9038.0%10745.1%52.1%61.2%
Adjuvant therapy
Yes27962288.2%67224.0%82529.5%70.1%0.36176.7%0.002
No13251239.3%30122.7%39029.4%68.2%71.8%
  13 in total

Review 1.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  A clinicopathological investigation of "tumor nodules" in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Satoshi Tateishi; Sumitaka Arima; Kitarou Futami; Kazumasa Kawahara; Daisuke Tachikawa; Kazuya Naritomi; Akinori Iwashita
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Lymph nodes, tumor deposits, and TNM: are we getting better?

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Tibor Tot; David G Jayne; Phil McShane; Anders Nihlberg; Helen C Marshall; Lars Påhlman; Julia M Brown; Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Prognostic significance of extranodal microscopic foci discontinuous with primary lesion in rectal cancer.

Authors:  H Ueno; H Mochizuki; S Tamakuma
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Detection of venous invasion in surgical specimens of colorectal carcinoma: the efficacy of various types of tissue blocks.

Authors:  A Sternberg; A Mizrahi; M Amar; G Groisman
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Lymph node negative colorectal cancers with isolated tumor deposits should be classified and treated as stage III.

Authors:  E J Th Belt; M F M van Stijn; H Bril; E S M de Lange-de Klerk; G A Meijer; S Meijer; H B A C Stockmann
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Impact of microscopic extranodal tumor deposits on the outcome of patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Ashish Prabhudesai; S Arif; Caroline J Finlayson; Devinder Kumar
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.585

8.  Prognostic factors affecting survival and recurrence of patients with pT1 and pT2 colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth S H Chok; Wai Lun Law
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-05-18       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 9.  Colorectal tumour deposits in the mesorectum and pericolon; a critical review.

Authors:  I D Nagtegaal; P Quirke
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2007-05-26       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Can the tumor deposits be counted as metastatic lymph nodes in the UICC TNM staging system for colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Yong-Xi Song; Peng Gao; Zhen-Ning Wang; Ji-Wang Liang; Zhe Sun; Mei-Xian Wang; Yu-Lan Dong; Xin-Fang Wang; Hui-Mian Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  13 in total

1.  Preoperative prediction of tumour deposits in rectal cancer by an artificial neural network-based US radiomics model.

Authors:  Li-Da Chen; Wei Li; Meng-Fei Xian; Xin Zheng; Yuan Lin; Bao-Xian Liu; Man-Xia Lin; Xin Li; Yan-Ling Zheng; Xiao-Yan Xie; Ming-De Lu; Ming Kuang; Jian-Bo Xu; Wei Wang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Development and validation of an immunity-related classifier of nine chemokines for predicting recurrence in stage I-III patients with colorectal cancer after operation.

Authors:  Guozeng Xu; Yuehan Zhou; Fuxiang Zhou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Tumor Deposits in Stage III Colon Cancer: Correlation With Other Histopathologic Variables, Prognostic Value, and Risk Stratification-Time to Consider "N2c".

Authors:  Victor E Pricolo; Jon Steingrimsson; Tracey J McDuffie; Joshua M McHale; Brian McMillen; Mark Shparber
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.787

4.  A Modified Pathological N Stage Including Status of Tumor Deposits in Colorectal Cancer With Nodal Metastasis.

Authors:  Jun-Peng Pei; Chun-Dong Zhang; Yu Liang; Cheng Zhang; Kun-Zhe Wu; Yong-Zhi Li; Zhe-Ming Zhao; Dong-Qiu Dai
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  The value of tumor deposits in evaluating colorectal cancer survival and metastasis: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Wenhao Wu; Xianbin Zhang; Shun Zeng; Peng Liu; Tong Qiu; Shulin Li; Peng Gong
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  The unique prognostic characteristics of tumor deposits in colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Fangqi Liu; Jiang Zhao; Cong Li; Yuchen Wu; Wang Song; Tianan Guo; Shiqing Chen; Sanjun Cai; Dan Huang; Ye Xu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-12

7.  Novel lymph node ratio predicts prognosis of colorectal cancer patients after radical surgery when tumor deposits are counted as positive lymph nodes: a retrospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Jin Yang; Shasha Xing; Jun Li; Shengke Yang; Junjie Hu; Hao Liu; Feng Du; Jie Yin; Sai Liu; Ci Li; Jiatian Yuan; Bo Lv
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-11-08

8.  An integrated lncRNA, microRNA and mRNA signature to improve prognosis prediction of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yongfu Xiong; Rong Wang; Linglong Peng; Wenxian You; Jinlai Wei; Shouru Zhang; Xingye Wu; Jinbao Guo; Jun Xu; Zhenbing Lv; Zhongxue Fu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-08-07

9.  Tumor deposits in colorectal cancer: the need for a new "pN" category.

Authors:  Leonardo S Lino-Silva; Diana L Xinaxtle; Rosa A Salcedo-Hernández
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-06

10.  A Modified Tumor-Node-Metastasis Classification for Stage III Colorectal Cancers Based on Treating Tumor Deposits as Positive Lymph Nodes.

Authors:  Jun-Peng Pei; Chun-Dong Zhang; Xiang Fu; Yong Ba; Shuai Yue; Zhe-Ming Zhao; Dong-Qiu Dai
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.