4.6 Article

Patterns of Lymph Node Metastasis and Survival for Upper Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 92, Issue 3, Pages 1091-1097

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.03.093

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. This study evaluated the clinical results, nodal metastatic patterns, and overall efficacy of esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for upper esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods. Between 2001 and 2008, esophagectomy was performed in 497 esophageal cancer patients, of whom 93 underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection, without neoadjuvant treatment for upper esophageal SCC. Results. Of these 93 patients, 91 (97.8%) were men, the median age was 65.0 years, and 82 (88.2%) underwent R0 resection with curative intent. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Pathologic T N M stages were stage I, 8.6%; stage II, 16.1%; stage III, 75.3%; and stage IV, 0%. The mean numbers of total lymph nodes dissected and, of those, total metastatic lymph nodes per patient were 61.7 +/- 18.2 and 4.7 +/- 7.0, respectively. Metastases occurred to the recurrent laryngeal lymph nodes in 43.3%, to the cervical lymph nodes in 46.2%, and to abdominal lymph nodes in 24.7% of patients. Overall 5-year and disease-free survival rates were 43.5% and 34.3%, respectively, and were 50.1% and 37.6%, respectively, for R0 resection. Conclusions. Recurrent laryngeal lymph node chains are those most commonly affected by nodal metastasis, and the prevalence of cervical lymph node involvement is high, at more than 40%. Esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection in patients with upper esophageal SCC can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Curative R0 resection for upper esophageal SCC achieved a satisfactory 5-year survival rate. (Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:1091-8) (C) 2011 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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