Claudius Conrad1, Onur C Kutlu2, Arvind Dasari3, Jennifer A Chan4, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey5, David B Adams2, Michael Kim5, Jason B Fleming5, Matthew H G Katz5, Jeffrey E Lee5. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Section of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. cconrad1@mdanderson.org. 2. Division of Gastrointestinal and Laparoscopic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Section of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of lymph node (LN) status and lymphadenectomy (LA) on survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) remains controversial. We evaluated the impact of tumor extension and grade on nodal metastasis and survival. METHODS: Surgical pNET patients were queried in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1998-2012, N = 981). Factors associated with LN status were analyzed by logistic regression and by Cox analyses. RESULTS: For T1-T2 tumors, N status was associated only with tumor size. N status (p = 0.001), grade (p < 0.001), age (p = 0.001), and sex (p = 0.007) predicted overall survival (OS). For T3-T4, grade (p < 0.001), sex (p = 0.004), size (p = 0.013), and age (p = 0.007) but not N status (p = 0.789) predicted OS. For T1-T2, disease-specific survival (DSS; p = 0.003) and OS (p = 0.008) were longer for N0 vs N1, while N0 vs NX had similar OS (p = 0.59) and DSS (p = 0.80). While a difference was seen in DSS for NX vs N1 (p = 0.04), no significant difference in OS was seen (p = 0.08). For T3-T4, N status did not affect DSS (p = 0.365) or OS (p = 0.454). For all T groups and any N status, extended LA (≥10 nodes resected) was not associated with OS. CONCLUSION: While in T1-T2 pNET N1 status is a predictor of negative OS, similar outcome between NX and N0 supports limited LN resection in selected patients. Extended LA is unlikely to be helpful in T3-T4.
BACKGROUND: The impact of lymph node (LN) status and lymphadenectomy (LA) on survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) remains controversial. We evaluated the impact of tumor extension and grade on nodal metastasis and survival. METHODS: Surgical pNET patients were queried in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1998-2012, N = 981). Factors associated with LN status were analyzed by logistic regression and by Cox analyses. RESULTS: For T1-T2 tumors, N status was associated only with tumor size. N status (p = 0.001), grade (p < 0.001), age (p = 0.001), and sex (p = 0.007) predicted overall survival (OS). For T3-T4, grade (p < 0.001), sex (p = 0.004), size (p = 0.013), and age (p = 0.007) but not N status (p = 0.789) predicted OS. For T1-T2, disease-specific survival (DSS; p = 0.003) and OS (p = 0.008) were longer for N0 vs N1, while N0 vs NX had similar OS (p = 0.59) and DSS (p = 0.80). While a difference was seen in DSS for NX vs N1 (p = 0.04), no significant difference in OS was seen (p = 0.08). For T3-T4, N status did not affect DSS (p = 0.365) or OS (p = 0.454). For all T groups and any N status, extended LA (≥10 nodes resected) was not associated with OS. CONCLUSION: While in T1-T2 pNET N1 status is a predictor of negative OS, similar outcome between NX and N0 supports limited LN resection in selected patients. Extended LA is unlikely to be helpful in T3-T4.
Authors: Alex B Haynes; Vikram Deshpande; Thun Ingkakul; Parsia A Vagefi; Jackie Szymonifka; Sarah P Thayer; Cristina R Ferrone; Jennifer A Wargo; Andrew L Warshaw; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-05
Authors: Jonathan R Strosberg; Asima Cheema; Jill Weber; Gang Han; Domenico Coppola; Larry K Kvols Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yassar M Hashim; Kathryn M Trinkaus; David C Linehan; Steven S Strasberg; Ryan C Fields; Dengfeng Cao; William G Hawkins Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James C Yao; Milton P Eisner; Colleen Leary; Cecile Dagohoy; Alexandria Phan; Asif Rashid; Manal Hassan; Douglas B Evans Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Sarah R Kaslow; Gerardo A Vitiello; Katherine Prendergast; Leena Hani; Steven M Cohen; Christopher Wolfgang; Russell S Berman; Ann Y Lee; Camilo Correa-Gallego Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Charlotte M Heidsma; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Flavio Rocha; Daniel E Abbott; Ryan Fields; George A Poultsides; Clifford S Cho; Alexandra G Lopez-Aguiar; Zaheer Kanji; Alexander V Fisher; Bradley A Krasnick; Kamran Idrees; Eleftherios Makris; Megan Beems; Casper H J van Eijck; Elisabeth J M Nieveen van Dijkum; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Shekhar Gogna; David Samson; Mahir Gachabayov; Aram Rojas; Daniel Moritz Felsenreich; Donna Koo; Katie Gu; Luis Quintero; Kendall Ryan Miller; Asad Azim; Xiang Da Eric Dong Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.895