4.5 Article

Prognostic impact of lymph node skip metastasis in Stage III colorectal cancer

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 O322-O329

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13465

关键词

Colorectal cancer; lymph node; skip metastasis; prognosis

资金

  1. Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Key Project [2014A020215014]
  2. Research Fund of Public Welfare in Health Industry
  3. National Health and Family Planning Commission of China [201402015]
  4. Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of lymph node skip metastasis (LNSM) in patients with Stage III colorectal cancer. MethodBetween April 2003 and December 2014, a total of 41 patients with lymph node skip metastasis (skip+) were compared with 86 patients with pericolic lymph node metastases [lymph node distribution (LND)1] and 57 patients with intermediate and/or main lymph node metastasis (LND2+3). All patients had radical D3 lymphadenectomy, performed either laparoscopically or as open surgery. ResultsThe frequency of pT1-2 stage cancer was significantly higher in the skip+ group than in the LND1 group (26.8% vs 5.8%, P=0.001). The number of metastatic lymph nodes in the skip+ group was lower than in the LND2+3 group (1.91.5 vs 6.5 +/- 6.0, P<0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of the skip+, LND1 and LND2+3 groups was 64.8%, 69.7% and 40.1%, respectively (P=0.008). The 3-year systemic recurrence rates of the skip+, LND1 and LND2+3 groups were 30.2%, 20.3% and 48.1%, respectively; (P=0.002). Cox regression analysis revealed that preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) of 5ng/ml [hazard ratio (HR)=2.2, P=0.029], poor differentiation (HR=3.8, P=0.001) and skip+ (HR=0.2, P=0.021) were independently prognostic factors for DFS. ConclusionThe prognosis for the LND1-negative lymph node skip metastasis group was better than for the LND2+3 group and was comparable with that of the LND1 group after radical D3 lymphadenectomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据