4.7 Article

Prognostic Significance of the Number of Lymph Nodes Examined in Colon Cancer Surgery Clinical Application Beyond Simple Measurement

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 251, 期 5, 页码 872-881

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c0e5b1

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify an optimal cutoff value for the number of lymph node examined (NLNE) to distinguish the prognoses in patients following a curative resection for advanced colon cancer, to clarify the mechanism of the difference, and to suggest the integration of NLNE to colon cancer staging. Patients and Methods: A total of 859 patients who had undergone surgical treatment for localized colon cancer from 1980 to 2000 were reviewed. This was a cohort from a single institution with mean NLNE of 20.7 and more than 12 NLNE in 77% of the patients. The optimal breakpoint for NLNE was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The patients were stratified into groups based on various parameters and underwent univariate and multivariate analyses with respect to survival. Results: The ROC analysis identified NLNE as a significant prognostic factor with cutoff value of 18 for node-negative and 20 for node-positive patients. A multivariate analysis with these cutoff values identified NLNE as a significant prognostic factor independent of tumor depth and the number of lymph nodes involved. The 5-year cause-specific survival of stage IIB patients was 96.5% with 18 or more NLNE and 67.5% with NLNE less than 18 (P[r] = 0.0067). Similarly, a cutoff value of 20 NLNE for node-positive patients separated the 5-year cause-specific survival of stage IIIB patients into 79.3% with 20 or more NLNE and 63.3% with less than 20 NLNE (P = 0.0052). Conclusions: The clinical significance of NLNE is not limited to being a benchmark for quality care, but has a definite benefit as a prognostic indicator across the stages. Patients could be stratified more efficiently by the integration of NLNE to TNM staging.

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