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: 3.75). 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.

Full-text

Available from: Dilara Seyidova Khoshknabi, Nov 18, 2014
432
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM VOLUME 57: 4 (2014)
BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate
the effect of pathologic reevaluation for colorectal cancers
with fewer than 12 lymph nodes on stage.
DESIGN: This study entailed a retrospective review of
pathology reports.
SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 2 large
multispecialty referral centers.
INTERVENTIONS: Pathologic reevaluation was performed
to look for additional lymph nodes.
PATIENTS: 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.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective
nature and small sample size.
CONCLUSION: 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.
KEY WORDS: Lymph nodes; Colorectal cancer; Benchmark;
Quality; Pathology.
T
here is little controversy surrounding lymph node
status as an important prognostic factor for sur-
vival in colorectal cancer. The total number of
nodes examined, the presence of nodal metastasis, and the
number of negative lymph nodes, have all been correlated
with outcome.
1–4
Total lymph node harvest has become an
increasingly important predictor of outcome and quality
in colorectal cancer.
2
The concept of a minimal threshold
of pathologically examined lymph nodes from colorec-
tal cancer resections was first introduced in 1990 by the
World Congress of Gastroenterology.
5
However, since that
Does Reevaluation of Colorectal Cancers With
Inadequate Nodal Yield Lead to Stage Migration or
the Identication of Metastatic Lymph Nodes?
Lilian Chen, M.D.
1
• Matthew F. Kalady, M.D.
2
• John Goldblum, M.D.
2
Dilara Seyidova-Khoshknabi, M.D.
2
• Eric J. Burks, M.D.
1
• Patricia L. Roberts, M.D.
1
Rocco Ricciardi, M.D., M.P.H.
1
1 Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts
2 Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 432–437
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000052
© The ASCRS 2014
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Presented at the meeting of the American College of Surgeons, Chicago,
IL, September 30 to October 4, 2012.
Correspondence: Rocco Ricciardi, M.D., MPH, Department of Colon
and Rectal Surgery, Lahey Clinic, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Tufts
University, 41 Mall Rd, Burlington, MA 01805. E-mail: rocco.ricciardi@
lahey.org
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Page 1
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM VOLUME 57: 4 (2014)
433
time, the minimal number of examined nodes for accurate
staging has been debated throughout the literature with
recommendations ranging from 6 to more than 40 lymph
nodes.
3,6–16
In 2007, the American College of Surgeons Commis-
sion on Cancer, the American Society of Clinical Oncol-
ogy, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
recommended that at least 12 regional lymph nodes
should be removed and pathologically examined for re-
sected colorectal cancers.
17
This quality threshold was then
endorsed by the National Quality Forum in April 2007, the
nation's clearinghouse for quality measures.
18
Since then,
insurers as well as others have applied this standard as a
quality benchmark, directing referrals to centers that meet
this minimum.
19
Efforts to increase lymph node yields are now wide-
spread. No standard pathologic reevaluation method
exists, although a variety of fat-clearing and fixation tech-
niques have been described.
20
At this time, for those in-
stances in which a stage II colon cancer has fewer than12
lymph nodes identified, the National Comprehensive
Cancer Network guidelines recommend routine patho-
logic reevaluation with the submission of more tissue for
potential lymph node identification.
21
Despite these rec-
ommendations, there are few data that pathologic restag-
ing has any affect on final pathologic stage or oncologic
outcomes. The aim of our study was thus to demonstrate
the effect of pathologic reevaluation for colorectal cancers
with inadequate lymph node yields on stage.
METHODS
Cohort
We conducted a retrospective review of all pathology re-
ports of patients with American Joint Committee on Can-
cer (7th Edition) stage I through III colorectal cancers
from the Lahey Clinic and Cleveland Clinic. We included
patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation for
rectal cancers and those with complete pathologic response
(ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant therapy. All patients who un-
derwent colorectal procedures between January 1, 2007
and March 31, 2011 were evaluated. Patients with fewer
than 12 lymph nodes who did not have pathology records
stating reevaluation were excluded from our study. In ad-
dition, patients with carcinoma in situ, stage IV colorectal
cancers, or colorectal cancers other than adenocarcinoma
were excluded. Cancers of the appendix, anus, anal canal,
and anorectum were not evaluated.
Standard Pathologic Review Protocol
Lymph nodes for colorectal specimens were harvested in a
standard fashion. Pericolonic adipose tissue was removed
from the bowel wall after formalin fixation. The adipose
tissue was thinly sectioned, and each slice was palpated for
areas of induration that were then evaluated histologically
by routine hematoxylin and eosin staining after process-
ing and paraffin embedding. In cases where fewer than
12 lymph nodes were observed, additional sampling of
the previous slices of adipose tissue was performed after
prolonged formalin fixation. In cases where induration
was not observed, fibrovascular structures were submit-
ted in several blocks with the hope of finding microscopic
lymph nodes on histologic review. Fat-clearing solutions
were used when appropriate. The number of sections per
pathologic specimen varied by institution.
Operative Procedure
The surgical procedure was performed either laparoscopi-
cally or with open traditional techniques. Both institu-
tions stressed the value of en bloc high ligation of the
named feeding vessel to the tumor. During the time frame
of this study, all rectal cancer procedures were conducted
with attention to autonomic nerve preservation and to-
tal mesorectal excision for distal rectal cancers or partial
mesorectal excision for mid to upper cancers. Procedures
were performed to at least meet the 12-lymph-node mini-
mum harvest recommended by the National Comprehen-
sive Cancer Network.
21
Review of Specimens With Fewer Than 12 Lymph Nodes
All pathology reports with inadequate lymph node yield
(fewer than 12 nodes) that underwent reevaluation at the
request of the pathologist, surgeon, or oncologist were
identified. No formal guidelines as to when reevaluation
should be performed were used by either institution. How-
ever, the reevaluation was encouraged when fewer than 12
lymph nodes were identified. An annotation that further
review was performed because of inadequate initial assess-
ment or an addendum to the original pathology note was
used as indication of “reevaluation.
Data Collection
The patient’s staging was standardized to the American
Joint Committee on Cancer (7th edition) TNM colon
and rectum cancer staging system. We recorded the initial
pathologic stage and the new stage following reevaluation.
We also recorded the following variables before and after
reevaluation: 1) total lymph node count, 2) metastatic
node count, 3) negative node count, and 4) lymph node
ratio for stage III cancers. The lymph node ratio was cal-
culated by dividing positive lymph nodes by total lymph
node counts. We then identified quartiles of lymph node
ratios as defined by Wang et al
22
where lymph node ratio
groups LNR1 through LNR4 were defined as <0.07, 0.07
to 0.25, 0.25 to 0.50, and 0.50 to 1.0.
Page 2
CHEN ET AL: LYMPH NODE THRESHOLDS
434
RESULTS
A total of 1682 patients underwent colorectal cancer resec-
tions during the 39-month study period at the 2 institutions.
Eighty-three patients underwent pathologic reevaluation
after initial inadequate lymph node harvest. The study
group age ranged from 34 to 97 years with a mean age of
68 ± 14 years. There were 55 male and 28 female patients.
Tumor location was identified as colonic in 48%, whereas
52% of tumors were rectal cancers. Approximately 88% of
all patients with rectal cancer had some element of neoad-
juvant therapy (short or long course). A subset of 20 pa-
tients did not have pathologic reevaluation despite having
inadequate lymph node yields. These patients were similar
to the group that had pathologic reevaluation with respect
to demographics, tumor location, and stage.
On initial pathologic review, mean nodal yields were
7.2 ± 2.6 (0.3 ± 0.8 metastatic nodes and 6.9 ± 2.8 negative
nodes). The initial pathologic review revealed 39 (47%)
stage I cancers, 28 (34%) stage II cancers, and 15 (18%)
stage III cancers. One patient (1%) had complete patho-
logic response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rec-
tal carcinoma.
Of the total group of 83 patients, 80% of patients
had 1 or more newly identified nodes on reevaluation.
On average, 6.9 ± 9.6 more lymph nodes were identified
on reevaluation (0.1 ± 0.4 metastatic nodes and 6.8 ± 9.6
negative nodes) (Fig. 1). A metastatic node was identi-
fied in 4 of 83 patients (4.8%). Despite the large number
of nodes identified, 37 (45%) patients remained below
the 12-lymph-node benchmark. From the subset of only
stage II patients, 14 (50%) patients remained below the
12-lymph-node benchmark.
After pathologic reevaluation, 1 patient (1.2%) had a
change in TNM stage from N1 disease to N2 disease. This
stage, however, remained a clinical stage IIIb cancer. Af-
ter pathologic reevaluation, staging remained 47% stage
I cancers, 34% stage II cancers, and 18% stage III cancers.
No pathologic upstaging resulted from our reevaluation.
Of the 28 patients with stage II cancers (34% of our study
population), no metastatic lymph node was found on
reevaluation.
Lymph node ratios were calculated for patients with
stage III cancer before and after reevaluation. The lymph
node ratio changed in 13 of 15 patients (87% of stage III can-
cers). Of these, 4 (31%) had a change in quartile (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
In this study of 1682 patients at 2 large specialty centers, we
evaluated the effect of pathologic reevaluation of colorec-
tal cancers with fewer than 12 lymph nodes on stage. Our
study revealed that pathologic reevaluation after inad-
equate nodal harvest as recommended by the National
Comprehensive Cancer Network yielded a large number
of negative lymph nodes and very rarely a metastatic node.
Ultimately, pathologic reevaluation led to no upstaging of
colorectal cancer stage at final reporting.
In colorectal cancer, the number of lymph nodes ex-
amined is associated with survival and is independent of
other known prognostic factors. It is for this reason that
a lymph node count of 12 has been proposed as a marker
of quality care in colorectal cancer.
1,17
However, there are
a substantial number of patients who do not have lymph
node yields that meet these criteria.
23–25
There are proba-
bly a number of reasons for inadequate lymph node yields,
16
Number of lymph nodes before and after reevaluation
Number of lymph nodes
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Before
0.3 0.4
6.9 13.7
Mean metastatic
Mean negative
After
FIGURE 1. Graph of lymph node yield before and after reevaluation. Results are mean total yields, negative nodal yields, and metastatic nodal
yields before and after pathology reevaluation.
Page 3
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM VOLUME 57: 4 (2014)
435
including tumor characteristics, tumor biology, surgeon,
and patient factors, as well as the pathologic evaluation of
the surgical specimen. A number of studies have sought to
identify factors, including one by Jakub et al
26
that revealed
that age, primary tumor site, cancer stage, and year of sur-
gery were all significantly associated with the number of
lymph nodes retrieved.
In 2007, the National Cancer Care Network recom-
mended routine reevaluation of all stage II colon cancer
specimens with fewer than 12 lymph nodes.
21
The evi-
dence basis for this recommendation was unclear, with the
exception of the understanding of the robust relationship
between lymph node yield and outcome. Given the lack of
clear evidence for reevaluation, we conducted this study
to identify the value of pathologic reevaluation. We found
that despite careful and thorough pathologic reevaluation,
few patients have a newly identified metastatic node on
review. Additionally, reevaluation did not have any effect
on cancer stage as one might expect. However, reevalua-
tion did yield almost double the initial lymph node count,
increasing the total lymph node count on final reporting.
In this study, we included patients with tumors ranging
from complete response to stage III and a location of colon
or rectum. However, it should be clear that the National
Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends pathologic
reevaluation for stage II colon cancers with fewer than 12
lymph nodes.
21
Our inclusion of all nonmetastatic adeno-
carcinomas and those tumors of the rectum (52%) was to
evaluate the role of reevaluation on all colorectal tumors
and to increase the size of our sample. Yet, the only patient
with a shift in N1 to N2 disease had rectal cancer and un-
derwent neoadjuvant therapy. The consistency of the find-
ing of no tumor upstaging despite variable tumor location
and stage might help us to better understand the mecha-
nism behind the association between lymph node harvest
and survival. Thus, it appears from our data, that increas-
ing lymph node yield beyond what is initially identified on
pathology is unlikely to improve survival. The theory that
increased survival with high lymph node yields is due to
upstaging (and the benefits of adjuvant therapy) is likely
without merit. The improved survival is more likely to be
associated with the extent of curative surgery or, poten-
tially, an immunological mechanism.
In our study, we did found that pathologic reevaluation
yielded additional lymph nodes and hence a change in the
lymph node ratio of our stage III colorectal cancers. Wang
et al found that lymph node ratio was an independent pre-
dictor of survival after adjusting for patients age, tumor
size, tumor grade, race, number of positive lymph nodes,
and total lymph nodes harvested. In his study, he found
that lymph node ratio was a more accurate prognostic
indicator for patients who had stage III colon cancer and
proposed a new classification algorithm for stage III co-
lon cancers.
22
The observed 5-year survival for increasing
quartiles of lymph node ratios was 64.8%, 56.2%, 45.1%,
and 29.6%.
22
Our analysis of lymph node ratios demon-
strated that 13 of 15 (87%) stage III patients had a change
in their lymph node ratio. Of those with a change in ratio,
only 4 patients had a decline in their lymph node quartile,
representing an improvement in reported outcome ac-
cording to Wang’s classification. Thus, reevaluation may
have some prognostic value in identifying patients who
might have a better prognosis and might serve as an im-
portant educational point in patient discussions.
Our data do not indicate that we should abandon
pathologic reevaluation. As previously stated, there may be
value in identifying negative lymph nodes for prognostic
purposes.
2
However, following pathologic reevaluation, no
patient had a change in stage or change in management. Ev-
idence basis should be used when possible in directing pa-
TABLE 1. Lymph node ratio and migration in quartiles
Patients Initial ratio (%) Final ratio (%) Change in ratio Change in quartile Quartile change
Stage III-1 50 27 Y N
Stage III-2 14 9 Y N
Stage III-3 20 6.7 Y Y LNR2 to LNR1
Stage III-4 11 11 N N
Stage III-5 50 38 Y N
Stage III-6 17 11 Y N
Stage III-7 44 33 Y N
Stage III-8 33 14 Y Y LNR3 to LNR2
Stage III-9 10 7 Y Y LNR2 to LNR1
Stage III-10 17 13 Y N
Stage III-11 10 8 Y N
Stage III-12 0 0 N N
Stage III-13 11 7 Y N
Stage III-14 40 38 Y N
Stage III-15 67 10 Y Y LNR4 to LNR2
Quartiles as dened by Wang etal.
22
Observed 5-year survival for increasing quartiles of lymph node ratios was 64.8%, 56.2%, 45.1%, and 29.6%. LNR quartiles: LNR1, <7%;
LNR2, 7%–25%; LNR3, 25%–50%; LNR4, 50%–100%.
LNR = lymph node ratio; Y, yes; N, no.
Page 4
CHEN ET AL: LYMPH NODE THRESHOLDS
436
tient care as well as when considering quality benchmarks
or guidelines. Our data indicate that there is little evidence
to mandate pathologic reevaluation in patients with inad-
equate lymph node yields. A goal of obtaining an adequate
lymph node count is important and certainly based on evi-
dence. But, the total lymph node yield should be the total
lymph nodes present in the specimen, which will likely vary
based on a number of the factors described above.
Our study has limitations based on the nature of the
study design. The pathology specimen processing was not
standardized across our 2 institutions and a list of 20 pa-
tients were never reevaluated despite having less than the
benchmark of 12 lymph nodes. It is unclear why those pa-
tients were not reevaluated, but the data do indicate that
they had similar tumor and patient characteristics as the
patients that did meet study inclusion criteria. Our pa-
tient population was derived from 2 large multispecialty
clinics with substantial knowledge and expertise in the
management of colorectal cancer. The group of surgeons,
pathologists, oncologists, and pathology technicians in-
volved in this patient population was well versed in the
understanding of the 12-lymph-node quality metric and
associated outcome. Although our initial study population
was large, the total number of patients who met study en-
try criteria was quite small. Therefore, a larger sample size
may uncover more patients with metastatic lymph nodes
on pathologic reevaluation. In addition, given the subspe-
cialty practice of the group involved, generalizability may
also be a concern. Bilimoria et al,
19
in 2008, examined the
use of a 12-node minimum as a national hospital report
card. They found that, according to the National Cancer
Database, the majority of colorectal cancers (about 75%)
were treated in community hospitals. Thus, repeating our
study with multiple centers may render the study findings
more applicable to the US population.
CONCLUSION
We found little value in pathologic reevaluation for patients
with colorectal cancer who have inadequate lymph node
counts. Our study did not aim to address the validity of the
12-lymph-node minimum. Instead, our aim was to deter-
mine the value and effect of routine reevaluation of speci-
mens with fewer than 12 lymph nodes as recommended
by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Thus, al-
though we can demonstrate that reevaluation increases to-
tal lymph node harvests, this practice is not associated with
a meaningful change in patient cancer stage. Ultimately, the
effect of pathologic reevaluation on patient cancer treat-
ment and outcome should be further investigated.
REFERENCES
1. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, et al. Colon cancer sur-
vival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes ana-
lyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin
Oncol. 2003;21:2912–2919.
2. Johnson PM, Porter GA, Ricciardi R, Baxter NN. Increasing
negative lymph node count is independently associated with
improved long-term survival in stage IIIB and IIIC colon can-
cer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3570–3575.
3. Swanson RS, Compton CC, Stewart AK, Bland KI. The progno-
sis of T3N0 colon cancer is dependent on the number of lymph
nodes examined. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:65–71.
4. Berger AC, Sigurdson ER, LeVoyer T, et al. Colon cancer surviv-
al is associated with decreasing ratio of metastatic to examined
lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8706–8712.
5. Fielding LP, Arsenault PA, Chapuis PH, et al. Clinicopathological
staging for colorectal cancer: an International Documentation
System (IDS) and an International Comprehensive Anatomical
Terminology (ICAT). J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1991;6:325–344.
6. Prandi M, Lionetto R, Bini A, et al. Prognostic evaluation of
stage B colon cancer patients is improved by an adequate
lymphadenectomy: results of a secondary analysis of a large
scale adjuvant trial. Ann Surg. 2002;235:458–463.
7. Caplin S, Cerottini JP, Bosman FT, Constanda MT, Givel JC. For
patients with Dukes’ B (TNM Stage II) colorectal carcinoma,
examination of six or fewer lymph nodes is related to poor
prognosis. Cancer. 1998;83:666–672.
8. Pocard M, Panis Y, Malassagne B, et al. Assessing the effective-
ness of mesorectal excision in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rec-
tum. 1998;41:839–845.
9. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon
and rectal surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:583–596.
10. Tepper JE, O’Connell MJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Impact of num-
ber of nodes retrieved on outcome in patients with rectal can-
cer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:157–163.
11. Joseph NE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, et al. Accuracy of de-
termining nodal negativity in colorectal cancer on the basis of
the number of nodes retrieved on resection. Ann Surg Oncol.
2003;10:213–218.
12. Sarli L, Bader G, Iusco D, et al. Number of lymph nodes ex-
amined and prognosis of TNM stage II colorectal cancer. Eur J
Cancer. 2005;41:272–279.
13. Maurel J, Launoy G, Grosclaude P, et al. Lymph node harvest re-
porting in patients with carcinoma of the large bowel: a French
population-based study. Cancer. 1998;82:1482–1486.
14. Goldstein NS. Lymph node recoveries from 2427 pT3 colorectal
resection specimens spanning 45 years: recommendations for a
minimum number of recovered lymph nodes based on predic-
tive probabilities. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:179–189.
15. Wong JH, Severino R, Honnebier MB, Tom P, Namiki TS. Num-
ber of nodes examined and staging accuracy in colorectal carci-
noma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2896–2900.
16. Shanmugam C, Hines RB, Jhala NC, et al. Evaluation of lymph
node numbers for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon
cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2011;4:25.
17. National Quality forum endorsed commission on cancer mea-
sures for quality of cancer care for breast and colorectal cancers.
American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; 2007.
Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/qualitymeasures.html.
Accessed June 13, 2012.
18. National Quality Forum. Available at: https://www.qualityfo-
rum.org/. Accessed January 30, 2014.
Page 5
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM VOLUME 57: 4 (2014)
437
19. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Stewart AK, et al. Lymph node eval-
uation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital
report card. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1310–1317.
20. Kukreja SS, Esteban-Agusti E, Velasco JM, Hieken TJ. Increased
lymph node evaluation with colorectal cancer resection: does it im-
prove detection of stage III disease? Arch Surg. 2009;144:612–617.
21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Practice Guide-
lines in Oncology - Colon Cancer. Version 2.2012. Available at:
http://www.cancernm.org/pdf/NCCN-CRC-Screening-Guide-
lines-2012.pdf. Accessed on July 5, 2013.
22. Wang J, Hassett JM, Dayton MT, Kulaylat MN. Lymph node ra-
tio: role in the staging of node-positive colon cancer. Ann Surg
Oncol. 2008;15:1600–1608.
23. Baxter NN, Virnig DJ, Rothenberger DA, Morris AM, Jessu-
run J, Virnig BA. Lymph node evaluation in colorectal can-
cer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2005;97:219–225.
24. Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Palis BE, Bentrem DJ, Talamonti MS,
Ko CY. Adequacy and importance of lymph node evaluation for
colon cancer in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:247–254.
25. Rajput A, Skibber JM, Engstrom PF, et al, Meeting the 12 lymph
node benchmark in colorectal cancer surgery: a comparison of
NCCN and SEER data. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25: 4015
26. Jakub JW, Russell G, Tillman CL, Lariscy C. Colon can-
cer and low lymph node count: who is to blame? Arch Surg.
2009;144:1115–1120.
Page 6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colon and rectal adenocarcinomas differ at a multitude of levels. The association between outcome and predictor in 1 group may obscure the relationship between outcome and predictor in the other. The current study aims to evaluate the prognostic properties of lymphovascular invasion in colon and rectal adenocarcinoma separately. A comparative retrospective analysis was undertaken to determine the prognostic properties of lymphovascular invasion in colon and rectal adenocarcinomas. Patients were classified as lymphovascular invasion positive and lymphovascular invasion negative in separate colon and rectal cancer cohorts. Within cohorts, a univariate analysis was undertaken to determine the association between lymphovascular invasion positivity and local/systemic recurrence and overall/disease-free survival. Findings were evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank analysis, and a Cox proportional hazards multivariate model. The primary outcomes measured were overall and disease-free survival. Five hundred twenty-seven patients were included in the analysis (379 with colon cancer and 148 with rectal cancer). On univariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion positivity was associated with adverse locoregional recurrence in colon (p = 0.002) but not rectal adenocarcinoma (p = 0.13). Conversely, lymphovascular invasion positivity was associated with adverse systemic recurrence in rectal (p = 0.002) but not colon adenocarcinoma (p = 0.35). On multivariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion positivity was an independent predictor of adverse disease-free survival in colon (p = 0.02) and rectal adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001). Regarding overall survival, lymphovascular invasion positivity was a poor prognostic indicator in rectal adenocarcinoma only (p = 0.04). In this retrospective analysis, lymphovascular invasion positivity was associated with different patterns of disease recurrence in colon and rectal cancer. Lymphovascular invasion positivity was associated with adverse overall survival in rectal cancer only.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To investigate the influence of individual surgeons and pathologists on examining an adequate (i.e. ≥10) number of lymph nodes in colon cancer resection specimens. The number of lymph nodes was evaluated in surgically treated patients for colon cancer at our hospital from 2008 through 2010, excluding patients who had received neo-adjuvant treatment. The patient group consisted of 156 patients with a median age of 73 (interquartile range (IQR) 63-82 years) and a median of 12 lymph nodes per patient (IQR 8-15). In 106 patients (67.9%), 10 or more nodes were histopathologically examined. At univariate analysis, the examination of ≥10 nodes was influenced by tumour size (p = 0.05), tumour location (p = 0.015), type of resection (p = 0.034), individual surgeon (p = 0.023), and pathologist (p = 0.005). Neither individual surgeons nor pathologists did statistically and significantly influence the chance of finding an N+ status. Age (p = 0.044), type of resection (p = 0.007), individual surgeon (p = 0.012) and pathologist (p = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors in a multivariate model for finding ≥10 nodes. Though cancer staging was not affected in this study, individual efforts by surgeons and pathologists play a critical role in achieving optimal lymph node yield through conventional methods. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015 · Digestive surgery
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Stage migration is an accepted explanation for the association between lymph node (LN) yield and outcome in colon cancer. To investigate whether the alternative thesis of immune response is more likely, we performed a retrospective study. We enrolled 239 cases of node negative cancers, which were categorized according to the number of LNs with diameters larger than 5 mm (LN5) into the groups LN5-very low (0 to 1 LN5), LN5-low (2 to 5 LN5), and LN5-high (≥6 LN5). Significant differences were found in pT3/4 cancers with median survival times of 40, 57, and 71 months (P = .022) in the LN5-very low, LN5-low, and LN5-high groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that LN5 number and infiltration type were independent prognostic factors. LN size is prognostic in node negative colon cancer. The correct explanation for outcome differences associated with LN harvest is probably the activation status of LNs. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2015 · American journal of surgery