4.7 Article

Identifying stage III colorectal cancer patients: The influence of the patient, surgeon, and pathologist

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 18, 页码 2573-2579

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.0445

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Nodal yields from resected colorectal cancers vary greatly. This study sought to determine what patient, tumor, and management factors influence the number of nodes retrieved and to determine if the extent of lymphadenectomy affects stage allocation and influences survival. Patients and Methods Retrospective study of the nodal yields of 7,062 surgically resected colorectal cancer patients for whom colorectal pathology minimum data sets had been collected. The percentage of patients diagnosed as stage III was compared across nodal yield categories. A threshold for an adequate lymphadenectomy was defined as retrieval of 12 nodes. Binary logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with obtaining an adequate lymphadenectomy. Results Median nodal yields increased over the study period from 7 (interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 11) in 1995 to 13 (IQR 8 to 19) in 2003. There was no difference in yield by cancer site or sex, but yields were lower in older patients. Yields increased with increasing local invasion and stage of tumor. The percentage of patients diagnosed as stage III increased as yields increased. Five-year survival was lower in those patients who did not have an adequate lymphadenectomy. Adequate lymphadenectomy was significantly more likely in patients with advanced tumors and when the surgery and pathology was undertaken by a specialist. Older patients were significantly less likely to receive an adequate lymphadenectomy. Conclusion Variations in nodal yield are due to idiosyncratic patient and tumor characteristics and differences in the quality of surgery and pathology undertaken. Adequate lymphadenectomy is essential to ensure correct stage allocation and optimal survival.

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

4.7
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