INTRODUCTION: Nodal status is a strong prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. The lymph node ratio (LNR) has been shown to be superior to the pN status in several studies. The role of log odds of the ratio between positive and negative nodes (LODDS) as a suggested new indicator of prognosis, however, has been hardly evaluated in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Prognostic factors for overall survival after resection for cancer of the pancreatic head were evaluated in 409 patients from two institutions (prospectively maintained databases). The lymph node status, LNR, and LODDS were separately analyzed and independently compared in multivariate survival analysis. RESULTS: The median numbers of examined and positive lymph nodes were 16 and 2, respectively. Actuarial 3- and 5-year survival rates were 29 and 16 %. All three classifications of nodal disease significantly predicted survival in the entire group (n = 409), in patients with free resection margins (n = 297), and in patients with <12 examined nodes. In multivariate analysis, however, both LNR and LODDS were equally superior to the nodal status. In node-negative patients (n = 110), LODDS could not identify subgroups with different prognosis. CONCLUSION: Both LNR and LODDS are superior to the classical nodal status in predicting prognosis in resected pancreatic cancer. However, LODDS has not shown any advantage over LNR in our series, neither in the entire patient group nor in the subgroups with free margins, negative nodes or a low number of examined nodes. Therefore, the use of LODDS to predict the outcome after resection of pancreatic head cancer cannot be recommended.
INTRODUCTION: Nodal status is a strong prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. The lymph node ratio (LNR) has been shown to be superior to the pN status in several studies. The role of log odds of the ratio between positive and negative nodes (LODDS) as a suggested new indicator of prognosis, however, has been hardly evaluated in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Prognostic factors for overall survival after resection for cancer of the pancreatic head were evaluated in 409 patients from two institutions (prospectively maintained databases). The lymph node status, LNR, and LODDS were separately analyzed and independently compared in multivariate survival analysis. RESULTS: The median numbers of examined and positive lymph nodes were 16 and 2, respectively. Actuarial 3- and 5-year survival rates were 29 and 16 %. All three classifications of nodal disease significantly predicted survival in the entire group (n = 409), in patients with free resection margins (n = 297), and in patients with <12 examined nodes. In multivariate analysis, however, both LNR and LODDS were equally superior to the nodal status. In node-negative patients (n = 110), LODDS could not identify subgroups with different prognosis. CONCLUSION: Both LNR and LODDS are superior to the classical nodal status in predicting prognosis in resected pancreatic cancer. However, LODDS has not shown any advantage over LNR in our series, neither in the entire patient group nor in the subgroups with free margins, negative nodes or a low number of examined nodes. Therefore, the use of LODDS to predict the outcome after resection of pancreatic head cancer cannot be recommended.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Zhe Sun; Yan Xu; De Ming Li; Zhen Ning Wang; Guo Lian Zhu; Bao Jun Huang; Kai Li; Hui Mian Xu Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marco La Torre; Giuseppe Nigri; Niccolò Petrucciani; Marco Cavallini; Paolo Aurello; Giulia Cosenza; Genoveffa Balducci; Vincenzo Ziparo; Giovanni Ramacciato Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Paolo Aurello; Niccolò Petrucciani; Giuseppe R Nigri; Marco La Torre; Paolo Magistri; Simone Tierno; Francesco D'Angelo; Giovanni Ramacciato Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hartwig Riediger; Ulrich Adam; Stefan Utzolino; Hannes P Neeff; Ulrich T Hopt; Frank Makowiec Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Oliver Strobel; Ulf Hinz; Alexander Gluth; Thomas Hank; Thilo Hackert; Frank Bergmann; Jens Werner; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Vincent Vinh-Hung; Claire Verschraegen; Donald I Promish; Gábor Cserni; Jan Van de Steene; Patricia Tai; Georges Vlastos; Mia Voordeckers; Guy Storme; Melanie Royce Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-06 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Dimitrios Prassas; Sami Alexander Safi; Maria Chara Stylianidi; Leila Anne Telan; Sarah Krieg; Christoph Roderburg; Irene Esposito; Tom Luedde; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Andreas Krieg Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Douglas A Rubinson; Richard F Dunne; Margaret M Kozak; Justin L Bui; Chen Yuan; Zhi Rong Qian; Ana Babic; Annacarolina Da Silva; Jonathan A Nowak; Natalia Khalaf; Lauren K Brais; Marisa W Welch; Caitlin L Zellers; Kimmie Ng; Daniel T Chang; Rebecca A Miksad; Andrea J Bullock; Jennifer F Tseng; Richard S Swanson; Thomas E Clancy; David C Linehan; Jennifer J Findeis-Hosey; Leona A Doyle; Jason L Hornick; Shuji Ogino; Charles S Fuchs; Aram F Hezel; Albert C Koong; Brian M Wolpin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 7.640