Article

Does Reevaluation of Colorectal Cancers With Inadequate Nodal Yield Lead to Stage Migration or the Identification of Metastatic Lymph Nodes?

Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (Impact Factor: 3.2). 04/2014; 57(4):432-437. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends routine reevaluation of all stage II colon cancer specimens with fewer than 12 lymph nodes. However, there are few data demonstrating the effect of reevaluation on stage.
The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effect of pathologic reevaluation for colorectal cancers with fewer than 12 lymph nodes on stage.
This study entailed a retrospective review of pathology reports.
This study was conducted at 2 large multispecialty referral centers.
Pathologic reevaluation was performed to look for additional lymph nodes.
All patients with stage I through III colorectal cancers with inadequate lymph node yields who underwent reevaluation from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2011 were identified.
We recorded initial pathologic stage and new stage following reevaluation. The following variables before and after reevaluation were also recorded: 1) total lymph node count, 2) metastatic node count, 3) negative node count, and 4) lymph node ratio.
Eighty-three patients underwent pathologic reevaluation from a total of 1682 cancer specimens. Mean nodal yields were 7.2 ± 2.6 on the first pathologic review. On reevaluation, 80% of patients had one or more newly identified nodes. On average, 6.9 ± 9.6 more lymph nodes were identified with a metastatic node detected in 4 of 83 patients (4.8%). After pathologic reevaluation, 1 patient (1.2%) had a change in TNM stage from N1 to N2 disease. The lymph node ratio changed in 13 of 15 patients (87% of stage III cancers). Only 4 of these had a change in lymph node quartile.
The study was limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size.
Few patients have a newly discovered metastatic node or stage change following pathologic reevaluation. The effect of pathologic reevaluation on treatment and outcome should be further investigated.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Dilara Seyidova Khoshknabi, Nov 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although evaluation of at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) is recommended as the minimum number of nodes required for accurate staging of colon cancer patients, there is disagreement on what constitutes an adequate identification of such LNs. To evaluate the minimum number of LNs for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon cancer, 490 patients were categorized into groups based on 1-6, 7-11, 12-19, and ≥ 20 LNs collected. For patients with Stage II or III disease, examination of 12 LNs was not significantly associated with recurrence or mortality. For Stage II (HR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.91), but not for Stage III patients (HR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.54-4.64), examination of ≥20 LNs was associated with a reduced risk of recurrence within 2 years. However, examination of ≥20 LNs had a 55% (Stage II, HR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.87) and a 31% (Stage III, HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.26) decreased risk of mortality, respectively. For each six additional LNs examined from Stage III patients, there was a 19% increased probability of finding a positive LN (parameter estimate = 0.18510, p < 0.0001). For Stage II and III colon cancers, there was improved survival and a decreased risk of recurrence with an increased number of LNs examined, regardless of the cutoff-points. Examination of ≥7 or ≥12 LNs had similar outcomes, but there were significant outcome benefits at the ≥20 cutoff-point only for Stage II patients. For Stage III patients, examination of 6 additional LNs detected one additional positive LN. Thus, the 12 LN cut-off point cannot be supported as requisite in determining adequate staging of colon cancer based on current data. However, a minimum of 6 LNs should be examined for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon cancer patients.
    Journal of Hematology & Oncology 05/2011; 4:25. DOI:10.1186/1756-8722-4-25 · 4.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of tumour staging for colorectal cancer (CRC) is to help define clinical management, facilitate communication between physicians, provide a basis for stratification and analysis of treatment results in prospective studies, and provide some prognostic information for patients and their families. The World Congresses of Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy, and Coloproctology, Working Party on staging for CRC studied six commonly used systems to review their strengths and weaknesses. Although it was concluded that defining a new staging system was unnecessary, it was recognized that there is a need to define a terminology to describe the full anatomic extent of spread of CRC. Furthermore, we note that there are several additional features, derived from both clinical and pathology information, which have had prognostic significance shown by appropriately constructed multivariate analyses and which can be used to formulate a more accurate prognostic index than that provided by a description of anatomical tumour spread. Thus the Working Party came to two principal conclusions. First, a standard format should be adopted for the collection of the essential data required for prospective studies, and we recommend the 'International Documentation System (IDS) for CRC' for this purpose. Second, a nomenclature which describes the full anatomical extent of tumour spread and residual tumour status in CRC has been defined and should be adopted, from which all currently used staging systems can be derived. We have called this nomenclature the 'International Comprehensive Anatomical Terminology (ICAT) for CRC'. In the event that these recommendations are adopted, we envision that there will be improved clarity in the documentation of treatment outcome for patients with CRC and improved communication of results derived from prospective studies. Furthermore, an acceptance of IDS and ICAT would set the scene to develop a prognostic index for individual patients with CRC by the expansion of anatomical clinicopathology staging information to include additional factors which have independent prognostic significance.
    Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 08/1991; 6(4):325-44. DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1746.1991.tb00867.x · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In patients with resected colorectal carcinoma, lymph node involvement has particular importance for patient prognosis and adjuvant therapy. The network of French cancer registries (FRANCIM) established a study aimed at analyzing the validity of lymph node harvest reporting in a population-based sample. The study population was comprised of 1081 resected tumors without distant visceral metastasis and classified using the TNM system. Correlation between the number of examined lymph nodes and the staging of the tumor was examined by logistic regression analysis to establish an estimate of the minimum number of lymph nodes required to determine whether a tumor is lymph node negative. An average of 7.7 +/- 0.2 lymph nodes were examined per specimen in the 851 patients for whom the number of lymph nodes examined was known. The proportion of cases classified as N+ increased significantly with the number of examined lymph nodes (chi-square trend = 24.6; P < 0.0001). If the probability of correct lymph node status assessment is 1 in the reference group (comprised of pathology reports of specimens with > or = 16 examined lymph nodes), the probability of correct N+/N- dichotomization was significantly < 1 for the 1 to 3 lymph nodes group and the 4 to 7 lymph nodes group (i.e., 53.7% of cases). To comply with current rules for adjuvant chemotherapy, surgeons must provide pathologists with at least eight lymph nodes for optimal N+/N- dichotomization to reduce the risk of misclassification and understaging.
    Cancer 05/1998; 82(8):1482-6. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980415)82:8<1482::AID-CNCR8>3.3.CO;2-B · 4.90 Impact Factor
Show more