Johannes Fritzmann1, Pietro Contin2, Christoph Reissfelder3, Markus W Büchler2, Jürgen Weitz3, Nuh N Rahbari3, Alexis B Ulrich2. 1. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. johannes.fritzmann@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study compared the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) and the 6th and the 7th TNM edition as three different lymph node classifications for rectal cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 630 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer between October 2001 and December 2007 were included. Prognostic factors of overall survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 36.1 months and the 5-year overall survival rate was 70.3 ± 4.7%. The median number of lymph nodes was 15.0 (12.0-19.0). All three lymph node evaluations correlated with survival (p < 0.0001). The assessment of nodal status in the 7th TNM edition enabled further prognostic stratification. The prognostic value of the three classifications were independent of neoadjuvant therapy and lymph node count. On multivariate analyses, the N2 stage of the 6th TNM edition (Hazard ratio 2.08; 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.58) and the N2b stage of the 7th TNM edition (2.18; 1.17-4.07) correlated with poor survival. A LNR of 0.42-0.69 was also associated with unfavorable prognosis (2.97; 1.46-6.03), as was an LNR > 0.69 (2.51; 1.04-6.05). The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated lymph node classifications were of comparable prognostic utility in patients with rectal cancer. The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications.
PURPOSE: The present study compared the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) and the 6th and the 7th TNM edition as three different lymph node classifications for rectal cancerpatients. METHODS: A total of 630 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer between October 2001 and December 2007 were included. Prognostic factors of overall survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 36.1 months and the 5-year overall survival rate was 70.3 ± 4.7%. The median number of lymph nodes was 15.0 (12.0-19.0). All three lymph node evaluations correlated with survival (p < 0.0001). The assessment of nodal status in the 7th TNM edition enabled further prognostic stratification. The prognostic value of the three classifications were independent of neoadjuvant therapy and lymph node count. On multivariate analyses, the N2 stage of the 6th TNM edition (Hazard ratio 2.08; 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.58) and the N2b stage of the 7th TNM edition (2.18; 1.17-4.07) correlated with poor survival. A LNR of 0.42-0.69 was also associated with unfavorable prognosis (2.97; 1.46-6.03), as was an LNR > 0.69 (2.51; 1.04-6.05). The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated lymph node classifications were of comparable prognostic utility in patients with rectal cancer. The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lymph node; Metastasis; Rectal cancer; Total mesorectal excision
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Alexis B Ulrich; Thomas Bruckner; Marc Münter; Axel Nickles; Pietro Contin; Thorsten Löffler; Christoph Reissfelder; Moritz Koch; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: W Schmiegel; A Reinacher-Schick; D Arnold; U Graeven; V Heinemann; R Porschen; J Riemann; C Rödel; R Sauer; M Wieser; W Schmitt; H-J Schmoll; T Seufferlein; I Kopp; C Pox Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; E Klein Kranenbarg; J Hermans; C J van de Velde; J W Leer; J H van Krieken Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert Rosenberg; Jan Friederichs; Tibor Schuster; Ralf Gertler; Matthias Maak; Karen Becker; Anne Grebner; Kurt Ulm; Heinz Höfler; Hjalmar Nekarda; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sherif R Z Abdel-Misih; Lai Wei; Al B Benson; Steven Cohen; Lily Lai; John Skibber; Neal Wilkinson; Martin Weiser; Deborah Schrag; Tanios Bekaii-Saab Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 11.908