Qi-Xin Shang1, Yu-Shang Yang1, Li-Yan Xu2, Hong Yang3, Yin Li4, Yi Li4, Zhi-Yong Wu2, Jian-Hua Fu3, Xiao-Dong Yao2, Xiu-E Xu2, Jian-Yi Wu2, Long-Qi Chen1. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Oncology Surgery, Shantou Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between the number of resected lymph nodes and survival to determine the optimal lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with negative lymph node. METHODS: We included 1,836 patients from Chinese three high-volumed hospitals with corresponding clinicopathological characters such as gender, age, tumor location, tumor grade and TNM stage of patients. The median follow-up of included patients was 45.7 months (range, 1.03-117.3 months). X-Tile plot was used to identify the lowest number of lymphadenectomy. The multivariate model's construction was in use of parameters with clinical significance for survival and a nomogram based on clinical variable with P<0.05 in Cox regression analysis. Both two models were validated using a cohort extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries database between 1975 and 2016 (n=951). RESULTS: More lymphadenectomy numbers were significantly associated with better survival in patients both in training cohort [hazard ratio (HR) =0.980; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.971-0.988; P<0.001] and validation cohort (HR =0.980; 95% CI: 0.968-0.991; P=0.001). Cut-off point analysis determined the lowest number of 9 for thoracic ESCC patients in N0 stage through training cohort (C-index: 0.623; sensitivity: 80.7%; 1 - specificity: 72.5%) when compared with 10 in validation cohort (C-index: 0.643; sensitivity: 78.2%; 1 - specificity: 63.0%). The cut-off points of 9 were examined in training cohort and validated in the divided cohort from validation cohort (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, nomograms for both cohorts were constructed and the calibration curves for both cohorts agreed well with the actual observations in terms of predicting 3- and 5-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Larger number for lymphadenectomy was associated with better survival in thoracic ESCC patients in N0 stage. Nine was what we got as the lowest number for lymphadenectomy in pN0 ESCC patients through this study, and our result should be confirmed further. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between the number of resected lymph nodes and survival to determine the optimal lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with negative lymph node. METHODS: We included 1,836 patients from Chinese three high-volumed hospitals with corresponding clinicopathological characters such as gender, age, tumor location, tumor grade and TNM stage of patients. The median follow-up of included patients was 45.7 months (range, 1.03-117.3 months). X-Tile plot was used to identify the lowest number of lymphadenectomy. The multivariate model's construction was in use of parameters with clinical significance for survival and a nomogram based on clinical variable with P<0.05 in Cox regression analysis. Both two models were validated using a cohort extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries database between 1975 and 2016 (n=951). RESULTS: More lymphadenectomy numbers were significantly associated with better survival in patients both in training cohort [hazard ratio (HR) =0.980; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.971-0.988; P<0.001] and validation cohort (HR =0.980; 95% CI: 0.968-0.991; P=0.001). Cut-off point analysis determined the lowest number of 9 for thoracic ESCC patients in N0 stage through training cohort (C-index: 0.623; sensitivity: 80.7%; 1 - specificity: 72.5%) when compared with 10 in validation cohort (C-index: 0.643; sensitivity: 78.2%; 1 - specificity: 63.0%). The cut-off points of 9 were examined in training cohort and validated in the divided cohort from validation cohort (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, nomograms for both cohorts were constructed and the calibration curves for both cohorts agreed well with the actual observations in terms of predicting 3- and 5-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Larger number for lymphadenectomy was associated with better survival in thoracic ESCC patients in N0 stage. Nine was what we got as the lowest number for lymphadenectomy in pN0 ESCC patients through this study, and our result should be confirmed further. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Authors: K L Prenzel; A H Hölscher; U Drebber; M Agavonova; C A Gutschow; E Bollschweiler Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Sarah K Thompson; Andrew R Ruszkiewicz; Glyn G Jamieson; Thomas R Sullivan; Peter G Devitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thomas W Rice; Hemant Ishwaran; Wayne L Hofstetter; Paul H Schipper; Kenneth A Kesler; Simon Law; E M R Lerut; Chadrick E Denlinger; Jarmo A Salo; Walter J Scott; Thomas J Watson; Mark S Allen; Long-Qi Chen; Valerie W Rusch; Robert J Cerfolio; James D Luketich; Andre Duranceau; Gail E Darling; Manuel Pera; Carolyn Apperson-Hansen; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396