The Lymph Node Ratio is the Strongest Prognostic Factor after Resection of Pancreatic Cancer

Department of Surgery, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.39). 05/2009; 13(7):1337-44. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-0919-2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Survival after surgery of pancreatic cancer is still poor, even after curative resection. Some prognostic factors like the status of the resection margin, lymph node (LN) status, or tumor grading have been identified. However, only few data have been published regarding the prognostic influence of the LN ratio (number of LN involved to number of examined LN). We, therefore, evaluated potential prognostic factors in 182 patients after resection of pancreatic cancer including assessment of LN ratio.
Since 1994, 204 patients underwent pancreatic resection for ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Survival was evaluated in 182 patients with complete follow-up evaluations. Of those 182 patients, 88% had cancer of the pancreatic head, 5% of the body, and 7% of the pancreatic tail. Patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (85%), distal resection (12%), or total pancreatectomy (3%). Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods.
In all 204 resected patients, operative mortality was 3.9% (n = 8). In the 182 patients with follow-up, 70% had free resection margins, 62% had G1- or G2-classified tumors, and 70% positive LN. Median tumor size was 30 (7-80) mm. The median number of examined LN was 16 and median number of involved LN 1 (range 0-22). Median LN ratio was 0.1 (0-0.79). Cumulative 5-year survival (5-year SV) in all patients was 15%. In univariate analysis, a LN ratio > or = 0.2 (5-year SV 6% vs. 19% with LN ratio < 0.2; p = 0.003), LN ratio > or = 0.3 (5-year SV 0% vs. 18% with LN ratio < 0.3; p < 0.001), a positive resection margin (p < 0.01) and poor differentiation (G3/G4; p < 0.03) were associated with poorer survival. In multivariate analysis, a LN ratio > or = 0.2 (p < 0.02; relative risk RR 1.6), LN ratio > or = 0.3 (p < 0.001; RR 2.2), positive margins (p < 0.02; RR 1.7), and poor differentiation (p < 0.03; RR 1.5) were independent factors predicting a poorer outcome. The conventional nodal status or the number of examined nodes (in all patients and in the subgroups of node positive or negative patients) had no significant influence on survival. Patients with one metastatic LN had the same outcome as patients with negative nodes, but prognosis decreased significantly in patients with two or more LN involved.
Not the lymph node involvement per se but especially the LN ratio is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancers. In our series, the LN ratio was even the strongest predictor of survival. The routine estimation of the LN ratio may be helpful not only for the individual prediction of prognosis but also for the indication of adjuvant therapy and herein related outcome and therapy studies.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is a disease with a poor prognosis usually diagnosed at a late stage. Therefore, screening, diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic cancer patients require up-to-date and evidence based management guidelines. The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group proposed to prepare an evidence based guideline based on the available scientific evidence and international guidelines. The preparatory and consultation board appointed by the Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group translated and complemented/modified the recent international guidelines. 37 clinical statements in 10 major topics were defined (Risk factors and genetics, Screening, Diagnosis, Staging, Surgical care, Pathology, Systemic treatment, Radiation therapy, Palliation and supportive care, Follow-up and recurrence). Evidence was graded according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) grading system. The draft of the guideline was presented and discussed at the consensus meeting in September 12, 2014. Statements were accepted with either total (more than 95% of votes, n = 15) or strong agreement (more than 70% of votes, n = 22). The present guideline is the first evidence based pancreatic cancer guideline in Hungary that provides a solid ground for teaching purposes, offers quick reference in everyday patient care and guides patient financing options. The authors strongly believe that these guidelines will become a standard reference for pancreatic cancer treatment in Hungary. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(8), 326-339.
    Orvosi Hetilap 02/2015; 156(8):326-39. DOI:10.1556/OH.2015.30063
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review highlights the rationale for dissection of the 16a2 and 16b1 paraaortic area during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Recent advances in surgical anatomy of the mesopancreas indicate that the retropancreatic area is not a single entity with well defined boundaries but an anatomical site of embryological fusion of peritoneal layers, and that continuity exists between the neuro lymphovascular adipose tissues of the retropancreatic and paraaortic areas. Recent advances in surgical pathology and oncology indicate that, in pancreatic head carcinoma, the mesopancreatic resection margin is the primary site for R1 resection, and that epithelial-mesenchymal transition-related processes involved in tumor progression may impact on the prevalence of R1 resection or local recurrence rates after R0 surgery. These concepts imply that mesopancreas resection during PD for pancreatic head carcinoma should be extended to the paraaortic area in order to maximize retropancreatic clearance and minimize the likelihood of an R1 resection or the persistence of residual tumor cells after R0 resection. In PD for pancreatic head carcinoma, the rationale for dissection of the paraaortic area is to control the spread of the tumor cells along the mesopancreatic resection margin, rather than to control or stage the nodal spread. Although mesopancreatic resection cannot be considered "complete" or "en bloc", it should be "extended as far as possible" or be "maximal", including dissection of 16a2 and 16b1 paraaortic areas.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Pancreatic carcinoma affecting the uncinate process is a challenging surgical condition. Several considerations affect the management plan, including the need for vascular resection and the ability to achieve a clear margin. Methods: The data of 19 patients who had curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the uncinate process were reviewed. Operative mortality and morbidity, and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated. Results: The study population included 13 male and 6 female patients with a mean age of 55 years. Nine patients (47.4%) had stage I disease, seven patients (36.8%) had stage II disease, and three patients (15.8%) had stage III disease. A total of 12 patients had Whipple procedure and 7 patients had total pancreatectomy. In total, there were 9 R0 and 10 R1 resections. Operative mortality rate was 10.5% (2/19), postoperative leakage rate was 21.1% (4/19), and wound sepsis rate was 21.1%. Median DFS was 19.2 months. Survival was superior in the Whipple procedure group than in the total pancreatectomy group (median survival 19 months vs 4 months, respectively). Vascular resection and retroperitoneal safety margin status did not affect disease relapse. Conclusion: Non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the uncinate process should be offered R0 or R1 resection whenever technically feasible.
    Clinical Medicine Insights: Gastroenterology 01/2015; 8:1-6. DOI:10.4137/CGast.S20650