4.6 Article

Rectal cancer with synchronous inguinal lymph node metastasis without distant metastasis. A call for further oncological evaluation

Journal

EJSO
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 1100-1103

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.12.018

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Inguinal lymph node metastasis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with isolated inguinal lymph node metastases to patients with inguinal and additional synchronous distant metastases from rectal cancer who received curative therapy. The results showed that patients with isolated inguinal lymph node metastases had a longer survival period, and further research is needed.
This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with isolated inguinal lymph node metastases from rectal cancer to patients with inguinal and additional synchronous distant metastases from rectal cancer who treated with curative intent. A retrospective review of all consecutive adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma and inguinal lymph node involvement who underwent curative therapy at our institution from 2002 to 2020 was conducted. Patients were classified as having synchronous inguinal lymph node metastasis (SILNM), or synchronous inguinal lymph node and distant organ metastasis (SILNDOM). Patients in the SILNM group had a median overall survival of 75 months compared to 17.6 months in the SILNDOM group;p-value = 0.09. The recurrence-free survival for patients with SILNM was 19.6 months compared to 2.4 months in the SILNDOM group;p-value = 0.053. In conclusion, SILNM appears to represent a distinct subgroup of patients with metastatic rectal cancer. These patients warrant consideration of treatment with curative intent. Further studies are needed. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available