Sicheng Zhou1, Yujuan Jiang1, Wei Pei1, Haitao Zhou1, Jianwei Liang1, Zhixiang Zhou1. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus on the safety and indications of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) for patients with clinical lateral pelvic node metastasis (LPNM) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 151 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) + LPND and divided them into two groups: nCRT group (n = 73) and non-nCRT group (n = 78). RESULTS: Thirty-one (20.5%) patients had LPNM by pathology. The operative time was significantly longer in the nCRT group (291.9 vs. 237.0 min, p < 0.001); however, the two groups had comparable intraoperative blood loss (87.3 vs. 78.9 ml, p = 0.607) and morbidity (19.2% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.537). Additionally, in the nCRT group, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that poor/mucinous/signet adenocarcinoma (odds ratio [OR] = 6.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-43.03, p = 0.047) and post-nCRT LPN size ≥7 mm (OR = 26.67, 95% CI = 2.87-247.91, p = 0.004) were independent risk factors for pathological LPNM. CONCLUSION: nCRT before TME + LPND is safe and feasible with a comparably low mortality and acceptable morbidity. Poor/mucinous/signet adenocarcinoma and post-nCRT LPN size ≥7 mm were independent predictive factors of pathological LPNM after nCRT for rectal cancer patients with clinical LPNM, and patients with these characteristics should consider LPND after nCRT.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus on the safety and indications of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) for patients with clinical lateral pelvic node metastasis (LPNM) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 151 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) + LPND and divided them into two groups: nCRT group (n = 73) and non-nCRT group (n = 78). RESULTS: Thirty-one (20.5%) patients had LPNM by pathology. The operative time was significantly longer in the nCRT group (291.9 vs. 237.0 min, p < 0.001); however, the two groups had comparable intraoperative blood loss (87.3 vs. 78.9 ml, p = 0.607) and morbidity (19.2% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.537). Additionally, in the nCRT group, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that poor/mucinous/signet adenocarcinoma (odds ratio [OR] = 6.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-43.03, p = 0.047) and post-nCRT LPN size ≥7 mm (OR = 26.67, 95% CI = 2.87-247.91, p = 0.004) were independent risk factors for pathological LPNM. CONCLUSION: nCRT before TME + LPND is safe and feasible with a comparably low mortality and acceptable morbidity. Poor/mucinous/signet adenocarcinoma and post-nCRT LPN size ≥7 mm were independent predictive factors of pathological LPNM after nCRT for rectal cancerpatients with clinical LPNM, and patients with these characteristics should consider LPND after nCRT.