| Literature DB >> 35008365 |
Fiona Speichinger1, Mihnea P Dragomir2,3,4, Simon Schallenberg2, Florian N Loch1, Claudius E Degro1, Ann-Kathrin Baukloh1, Lisa Hartmann1, Ioannis Pozios1, Christian Schineis1, Georgios Antonios Margonis5, Johannes C Lauscher1, Katharina Beyer1, Carsten Kamphues1.
Abstract
Mechanisms of lymph node invasion seem to play a prognostic role in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after resection. However, the 8th edition of the TNM classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) does not consider this. The aim of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of different mechanisms of lymph node invasion on PDAC. One hundred and twenty-two patients with resected PDAC were examined. We distinguished three groups: direct (per continuitatem, Nc) from the main tumour, metastasis (Nm) without any contact to the main tumour, and a mixed mechanism (Ncm). Afterwards, the prognostic power of the different groups was analysed concerning overall survival (OS). In total, 20 patients displayed direct lymph node invasion (Nc = 16.4%), 44 were classed as Nm (36.1%), and 21 were classed as Ncm (17.2%). The difference in OS was not statistically significant between N0 (no lymph node metastasis, n = 37) and Nc (p = 0.134), while Nm had worse OS than N0 (p < 0.001). Direct invasion alone had no statistically significant effect on OS (p = 0.885). Redefining the N0 stage by including Nc patients showed a more precise OS prediction among N stages (p = 0.001 vs. p = 0.002). Nc was more similar to N0 than to Nm; hence, we suggest a rethinking of TNM classification based on the mechanisms of lymph node metastases in PDAC. Overall, this novel classification is more precise.Entities:
Keywords: TNM classification; direct lymph node invasion; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 35008365 PMCID: PMC8750597 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Clinicopathologics arranged by the different lymph node types.
| N0 ( | Nc ( | Nm ( | Ncm ( | Total ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Age (range) | 70.3 | 70.3 | 71.6 | 69.2 | 70.3 | 0.402 | |
| Gender | 0.459 | ||||||
| female | 20 | 10 | 19 | 7 | 56 (45.9) | ||
| male | 17 | 10 | 25 | 14 | 66 (54.1) | ||
| T stage | 0.693 | ||||||
| T1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 (7.4) | ||
| T2 | 13 | 10 | 24 | 9 | 56 (45.9) | ||
| T3 | 20 | 9 | 18 | 10 | 57 (46.7) | ||
| T4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| N stage | <0.001 | ||||||
| N0 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 (30.3) | ||
| N1 | 0 | 20 | 27 | 7 | 54 (44.3) | ||
| N2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 14 | 31 (25.4) | ||
| Resection | 0.340 | ||||||
| R0 | 29 | 18 | 35 | 14 | 96 (78.7) | ||
| R1 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 26 (21.3) | ||
| Grade | 0.090 | ||||||
| G1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 (4.1) | ||
| G2 | 20 | 11 | 21 | 11 | 63 (51.6) | ||
| G3 | 12 | 9 | 22 | 10 | 53 (43.4) | ||
| G4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 (0.8) | ||
| Location | 0.035 | ||||||
| head | 24 | 17 | 41 | 19 | 101 (82.8) | ||
| corpus | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 (4.1) | ||
| tail | 10 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 16 (13.1) | ||
| Invasion | |||||||
| ALI | 1 | 8 | 28 | 14 | 51 (41.8) | <0.001 | |
| VNI | 3 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 25 (20.5) | 0.115 | |
| PNI | 17 | 14 | 31 | 16 | 78 (63.9) | 0.486 |
N0: node negative; Nc: direct node invasion (per continuitatem); Nm: regional lymph node metastasis; Ncm: mixed node invasion; ALI: angiolymphatic invasion; VNI: venous invasion; PNI: perineural invasion. Percentage in brackets.
Figure 1Histological sections with haematoxylin–eosin staining (at 20x magnification and the zoom-in cassettes at 100x magnification) of the different types of lymph node invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: (A) direct lymph node invasion by the main tumour per continuitatem, Nc; (B) indirect lymph node invasion without any contact to the main tumour, Nm; (C) Mixed lymph node invasion, Ncm; (D) pattern of the different lymph node types in our study.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | CI 95% | HR | CI 95% | |||
| age (<65/>65 years) | 01.217 | 0.708–2.091 | 0.478 | |||
| sex (male/female) | 0.671 | 0.411–1.097 | 0.112 | |||
| T stage (T1/T3) | 1.539 | 0.645–3.674 | 0.331 | |||
| resection (R0/R1) | 2.706 | 1.507–4.859 | 0.001 | 1.627 | 0.838–3.160 | 0.151 |
| grade (G2/G3) | 1.481 | 0.901–2.435 | 0.121 | |||
| PNI (no/yes) | 2.250 | 0.891–5.683 | 0.86 | |||
| VI (no/yes) | 2.387 | 1.336–4.266 | 0.003 | 2.504 | 1.384–4.515 | 0.002 |
| ALI (no/yes) | 2.378 | 1.420–3.983 | 0.001 | 1.6 | 0.861–2.973 | 0.137 |
| LNR (>0-<0.2/≥0.4) | 2.138 | 0.910–5.024 | 0.081 | |||
| Mechanism of lymph node invasion | ||||||
| Nc (no/yes) | 0.952 | 0.484–1.869 | 0.885 | |||
| N0-R(N0 + Nc)/Nm + Ncm | 2.567 | 1.511–4.359 | <0.001 | 3.024 | 1.709–5.352 | <0.001 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; ALI: angiolymphatic invasion; VNI: venous invasion; PNI: perineural invasion; N0: node negative; Nc: direct node invasion (per continuitatem); Nm: regional lymph node metastasis; Ncm: mixed node invasion.
Figure 2Overall survival (OS) of patients with PDAC distinguished by node-negative (N0), per continuitatem (Nc), lymph node metastasis (Nm), and combination of per continuitatem and lymph node metastasis (Ncm). Overall statistical significance difference was p = 0.002; no statistical significance difference between N0 and Nc (p = 0.134); a significant statistically difference between N0 and Nm was found (p ≤ 0.001); Nc and Nm showed no statistically significant difference, but their curves diverged strongly (p = 0.261). No statistically significant difference between Nm and Ncm was found (p = 0.724).
Figure 3Overall survival (OS) sorted by N categories. (A) OS of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual for PDAC. (B) Revised N categories (N0-R = N0 + Nc) with statistically significant difference compared with the actual N categories (p= 0.002 vs. p= 0.001).
Proportions of lymph node types of the latest studies.
| Total | N0 | Nc | Nm | Ncm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Konstantinidis et al. 2010 | 336 | 168 | 50.0% | 32 | 9.5% | 131 | 39.0% | 5 | 1.5% |
| Pai et al. 2011 | 380 | 97 | 25.5% | 35 | 9.2% | 239 | 62.9% | 9 | 2.4% |
| Buc et al. 2014 | 301 | 87 | 28.9% | 19 | 6.3% | 179 | 59.5% | 16 | 5.3% |
| Williams et al. 2015 | 385 | 146 | 37.9% | 14 | 3.6% | 220 | 57.1% | 5 | 1.3% |
| Hoshikawa et al. 2019 | 98 | 10 | 10.2% | 14 | 14.3% | 66 | 67.3% | x | x |
| Byun et al. 2021 | 506 | 176 | 34.8% | 48 | 9.5% | 218 | 43.1% | 64 | 12.6% |
| Current study 2021 | 122 | 37 | 30.3% | 20 | 16.4% | 44 | 36.1% | 21 | 17.2% |
N0: node negative; Nc: direct node invasion; Nm: regional lymph node metastasis; Ncm: mixed node invasion. Total number of analysed patients; excluded patients are not considered.
Overall survival of lymph node types of the latest studies.
| N0 | Nc | Nm | Ncm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| OS Median |
| OS Median |
| OS Median |
| OS Median | |
| Konstantinidis et al. 2010 | 168 | 30.8 | 32 | x | 131 | x | 5 | x |
| Pai et al. 2011 | 97 | 30 | 35 | 21 * | 239 | 15 ** | 9 | 15 |
| Buc et al. 2014 | 87 | 57 | 19 | 34 ** | 179 | 33 ** | 16 | 22 |
| Williams et al. 2015 | 146 | 40.7 | 14 | 48.1 | 220 | 25.7 ** | 5 | x |
| Current study 2021 | 37 | x | 20 | 13.5 | 44 | 18.2 ** | 21 | 9.2 ** |
| Total | 535 | 120 | 813 | 56 | ||||
| Weighted Median OS | 30.8 | 21 | 25.7 | 15 | ||||
Modified table of Williams et al. [10]: N0: node negative; Nc: direct node invasion; Nm: regional lymph node metastasis; Ncm: mixed node invasion; x: not calculated. * Significant difference with Nm. ** Significant difference with N0. The latest study of Byun et al. was excluded as they calculated only disease-free survival, as were the results of Hoshikawa et al. [11], as they built groups of single lymph nodes and distinguished further between isolated tumour cells and between scatter type.