4.3 Article

Clinicopathologic factors predicting lymph node metastasis in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 5, Pages 589-594

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2013.838604

Keywords

esophagus; lymph node metastasis; squamous cell carcinoma

Funding

  1. Korea Healthcare technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A121994]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC), but it is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Recently, endoscopic resection for SESCC has been indicated for patients with a low risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM). Therefore, to successfully treat SESCC with endoscopic resection, it is very important to identify patients with a low risk for LNM. The objective of this study was to investigate clinicopathologic factors that predict LNM in patients who underwent esophagectomy for SESCC. Methods. The study included 104 patients with SESCC from three university hospitals in Pusan, Korea. Clinicopathologic factors were evaluated to identify independent factors predicting LNM by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results. In univariate analysis, the depth of tumor invasion and lymphovascular invasion had significant influences on LNM (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Gross type, tumor size, and tumor differentiation were not predictive for LNM. In multivariate analysis, the depth of tumor invasion and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with LNM in patients with SESCC (OR 9.04, p = 0.049; OR 11.61, p = 0.002, respectively). Conclusions. The depth of tumor invasion and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of LNM in patients with SESCC. Therefore, endoscopic resection could be performed in patients with SESCC that is limited to the mucosa, without lymphovascular invasion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available