| Literature DB >> 31250569 |
Yaqi Wang1,2, Menglong Zhou1,2, Jianing Yang1,2, Xiaoyang Sun1,2, Wei Zou1,2, Zhiyuan Zhang1,2, Jing Zhang1,2, Lijun Shen1,2, Lifeng Yang1,2, Zhen Zhang1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is recommended for colorectal cancer to harvest at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) during surgery to avoid understaging of the disease. However, it is still controversial whether it is necessary to harvest from locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT). The impact of lymph node yield (LNY) on prognosis in LARC patients was analyzed. MATERIALS/Entities:
Keywords: locally advanced rectal cancer; lymph node yield; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; prognosis; tumor regression grade
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31250569 PMCID: PMC6712464 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Patients’ characteristics stratified by the LNY subgroups
| Characteristics, No. (%) | All (N = 495) | LNY < 12 (N = 287) | LNY ≥ 12 (N = 208) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 0.130 | |||
| < 50 | 160 (32.3) | 85 (29.6) | 75 (36.1) | |
| ≥50 | 335 (67.7) | 202 (70.4) | 133 (63.9) | |
| Gender | 0.855 | |||
| Male | 352 (71.1) | 205 (71.4) | 147 (70.7) | |
| Female | 143 (28.9) | 82 (28.6) | 61 (29.3) | |
| cT | 0.825 | |||
| T2 | 11 (2.2) | 7 (2.4) | 4 (1.9) | |
| T3 | 387 (78.2) | 226 (78.7) | 161 (77.4) | |
| T4 | 97 (19.6) | 54 (18.8) | 43 (20.7) | |
| cN | 0.855 | |||
| N0 | 61 (12.3) | 37 (12.9) | 24 (11.5) | |
| N1 | 221 (44.6) | 129 (44.9) | 92 (44.2) | |
| N2 | 213 (43.0) | 121 (42.2) | 92 (44.2) | |
| Distance from anus (cm) | 0.874 | |||
| ≤5 | 290 (58.6) | 169 (58.9) | 121 (58.2) | |
| >5 | 205 (41.4) | 118 (41.1) | 87 (41.8) | |
| Radiation dose (Gy) | 0.219 | |||
| ≤50 | 396 (80.0) | 235 (81.9) | 161 (77.4) | |
| >50 | 99 (20.0) | 52 (18.1) | 47 (22.6) | |
| Interval chemotherapy | 0.104 | |||
| No | 175 (35.4) | 110 (38.3) | 65 (31.3) | |
| Yes | 320 (64.6) | 177 (61.7) | 143 (68.8) | |
| Interval time | 0.008 | |||
| <60 | 354 (71.5) | 192 (66.9) | 162 (77.9) | |
| ≥60 | 141 (28.5) | 95 (33.1) | 46 (22.1) | |
| Surgical procedure | 0.717 | |||
| APR | 267 (53.9) | 153 (53.3) | 114 (54.8) | |
| AR | 194 (39.2) | 116 (40.4) | 78 (37.5) | |
| Hartmann | 34 (6.9) | 18 (6.3) | 16 (7.7) | |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.544 | |||
| No | 35 (7.1) | 22 (7.7) | 13 (6.3) | |
| Yes | 460 (92.9) | 265 (92.3) | 195 (93.8) | |
| Differentiation grade | 0.721 | |||
| Low | 65 (13.1) | 35 (12.2) | 30 (14.5) | |
| Middle | 203 (41.0) | 120 (41.8) | 83 (40.1) | |
| High | 16 (3.2) | 11 (3.8) | 5 (2.4) | |
| Unknown | 210 (42.5) | 121 (42.2) | 89 (43.0) | |
| TRG | 0.446 | |||
| 0 | 105 (21.2) | 59 (20.6) | 46 (22.1) | |
| 1 | 133 (26.9) | 85 (29.6) | 48 (23.1) | |
| 2 | 222 (44.8) | 124 (43.2) | 98 (47.1) | |
| 3 | 35 (7.1) | 19 (6.6) | 16 (7.7) | |
| ypT | 0.174 | |||
| T0 | 105 (21.2) | 60 (20.9) | 45 (21.6) | |
| T1 | 20 (4.0) | 12 (4.2) | 9 (4.3) | |
| T2 | 138 (27.9) | 91 (31.7) | 46 (22.1) | |
| T3 | 203 (41.0) | 110 (38.3) | 93 (44.7) | |
| T4 | 29 (5.9) | 14 (4.9) | 15 (7.2) | |
| ypN | 0.264 | |||
| N0 | 347 (70.1) | 202 (70.4) | 145 (69.7) | |
| N1 | 100 (20.2) | 62 (21.6) | 38 (18.3) | |
| N2 | 48 (9.7) | 23 (8.0) | 25 (12.0) | |
| TD | 0.155 | |||
| Negative | 407 (82.2) | 230 (80.1) | 177 (85.1) | |
| Positive | 88 (17.8) | 57 (19.9) | 31 (14.9) | |
| Vascular invasion | 0.869 | |||
| Negative | 463 (93.5) | 268 (93.4) | 195 (93.8) | |
| Positive | 32 (6.5) | 19 (6.6) | 13 (6.3) | |
| Neural invasion | 0.504 | |||
| Negative | 442 (89.3) | 254 (88.5) | 188 (90.4) | |
| Positive | 53 (10.7) | 33 (11.5) | 20 (9.6) | |
| CRM invasion | 0.386 | |||
| Negative | 492 (99.4) | 286 (99.7) | 206 (99.0) | |
| Positive | 3 (0.6) | 1 (0.3) | 2 (1.0) |
Abbreviations: CRM, circumferential resection margin; LNY, lymph node yield; TD, tumor deposit; TRG, tumor regression grade
Figure 1Kaplan‐Meier curves of survival times stratified by the lower and higher LNY subgroups
Figure 2Forest plots of adjusted HRs and 95% CIs in relation to OS
Figure 3Forest plots of adjusted HRs and 95% CIs in relation to DFS
Figure 4Forest plots of adjusted HRs and 95% CIs in relation to survival times in patients with different metastatic status of LNs
Figure 5Forest plots of adjusted HRs and 95% CIs in relation to survival times in patients with good or poor tumor response