Apostolos Gaitanidis1,2, Dhaval Patel1, Naris Nilubol1, Amit Tirosh1,3, Electron Kebebew1,4. 1. Endocrine Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Surgery, Democritus University of Thrace Medical School, Alexandroupoli, Greece. 3. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Department of Surgery, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia.
Abstract
Context: The incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is increasing. Current staging systems include nodal positivity, but the association of lymph node status and worse survival is controversial. Objective: The study aim was to determine the prognostic significance of lymph node ratio (LNR) and compare it with nodal positivity for PNET. Design, Setting, Participants, and Intervention: A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2004 and 2011 was performed in patients who underwent a pancreatectomy with lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS). Results: Of the 896 patients analyzed, T stage, N stage, distant metastasis, grade, extent of resection, sex, and age ≥57 years were significantly associated with worse DSS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, age ≥57 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.74, P = 0.015], male sex (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.48; P = 0.046), grade (poorly differentiated/undifferentiated: HR 7.59; 95% CI, 4.71 to 12.23; P < 0.001), distant metastases (HR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.58 to 3.79; P < 0.001), and partial pancreatectomy (HR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.4; P = 0.015) were associated with worse DSS. Comparison between staging models constructed based on LNR cutoffs and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth edition staging system revealed that a model based on LNR ≥0.5 was superior. Conclusions: LNR ≥0.5 is independently associated with worse DSS. A staging system with LNR ≥0.5 was superior to the current AJCC eighth edition staging system.
Context: The incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is increasing. Current staging systems include nodal positivity, but the association of lymph node status and worse survival is controversial. Objective: The study aim was to determine the prognostic significance of lymph node ratio (LNR) and compare it with nodal positivity for PNET. Design, Setting, Participants, and Intervention: A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2004 and 2011 was performed in patients who underwent a pancreatectomy with lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS). Results: Of the 896 patients analyzed, T stage, N stage, distant metastasis, grade, extent of resection, sex, and age ≥57 years were significantly associated with worse DSS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, age ≥57 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.74, P = 0.015], male sex (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.48; P = 0.046), grade (poorly differentiated/undifferentiated: HR 7.59; 95% CI, 4.71 to 12.23; P < 0.001), distant metastases (HR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.58 to 3.79; P < 0.001), and partial pancreatectomy (HR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.4; P = 0.015) were associated with worse DSS. Comparison between staging models constructed based on LNR cutoffs and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth edition staging system revealed that a model based on LNR ≥0.5 was superior. Conclusions: LNR ≥0.5 is independently associated with worse DSS. A staging system with LNR ≥0.5 was superior to the current AJCC eighth edition staging system.
Authors: P Tomassetti; D Campana; L Piscitelli; R Casadei; D Santini; F Nori; A M Morselli-Labate; R Pezzilli; R Corinaldesi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ian-James Malm; Caleb J Fan; Linda X Yin; David X Li; Wayne M Koch; Christine G Gourin; Karen T Pitman; Jeremy D Richmon; William H Westra; Hyunseok Kang; Harry Quon; David W Eisele; Carole Fakhry Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Bettini; L Boninsegna; W Mantovani; P Capelli; C Bassi; P Pederzoli; G F Delle Fave; F Panzuto; A Scarpa; M Falconi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Martyn E Caplin; Marianne Pavel; Jarosław B Ćwikła; Alexandria T Phan; Markus Raderer; Eva Sedláčková; Guillaume Cadiot; Edward M Wolin; Jaume Capdevila; Lucy Wall; Guido Rindi; Alison Langley; Séverine Martinez; Joëlle Blumberg; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
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: G Rindi; G Klöppel; H Alhman; M Caplin; A Couvelard; W W de Herder; B Erikssson; A Falchetti; M Falconi; P Komminoth; M Körner; J M Lopes; A-M McNicol; O Nilsson; A Perren; A Scarpa; J-Y Scoazec; B Wiedenmann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Ding Ding; Ammar A Javed; Chunhui Yuan; Michael J Wright; Zunaira N Javed; Jonathan A Teinor; I Chae Ye; Richard A Burkhart; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 3.452