34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology

      Submit here before May 31, 2024

      About Digestion: 3.2 Impact Factor I 6.4 CiteScore I 0.914 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Qualitative and Quantitative Issues of Lymph Nodes as Prognostic Factor in Colon Cancer

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          For patients undergoing curative resections for colon cancer, the nodal status represents the strongest prognostic factor, yet at the same time the most disputed issue as well. Consequently, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of lymph node evaluation are thus being scrutinized beyond the blunt distinction between ‘node positive' (pN+) and ‘node negative' (pN0) disease. Controversy ranges from a minimal or ‘least-unit' strategy as exemplified by the ‘sentinel node' to a maximally invasive or ‘all inclusive' approach by extensive surgery. Ranging between these two extremes of node sampling strategies are factors of quantitative and qualitative value, which may be subject to modification. Qualitative issues may include aspects of lymph node harvest reflected by surgeon, pathologist and even hospital performance, which all may be subject to modification. However, patient's age, gender and genotype may be non-modifiable, yet influence node sample. Quantitative issues may reflect the balance between absolute numbers and models investigating the relationships of positive to negative nodes (lymph node ratio; log odds of positive lymph nodes). This review provides an updated overview of the current controversies and a state-of-the-art perspective on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of using lymph nodes as a prognostic marker in colon cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Microsatellite instability has a positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer after complete resection: results from a large, consecutive Norwegian series

          Background Microsatellite instability (MSI) was suggested as a marker for good prognosis in colorectal cancer in 1993 and a systematic review from 2005 and a meta-analysis from 2010 support the initial observation. We here assess the prognostic impact and prevalence of MSI in different stages in a consecutive, population-based series from a single hospital in Oslo, Norway. Patients and methods Of 1274 patients, 952 underwent major resection of which 805 were included in analyses of MSI prevalence and 613 with complete resection in analyses of outcome. Formalin-fixed tumor tissue was used for PCR-based MSI analyses. Results The overall prevalence of MSI was 14%, highest in females (19%) and in proximal colon cancer (29%). Five-year relapse-free survival (5-year RFS) was 67% and 55% (P = 0.030) in patients with MSI and MSS tumors, respectively, with the hazard ratio (HR) equal to 1.60 (P = 0.045) in multivariate analysis. The improved outcome was confined to stage II patients who had 5-year RFS of 74% and 56% respectively (P = 0.010), HR = 2.02 (P = 0.040). Examination of 12 or more lymph nodes was significantly associated with proximal tumor location (P < 0.001). Conclusions MSI has an independent positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer patients after complete resection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio in stage III colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

            Although nodal invasion represents one of the most powerful prognostic indicators in colorectal cancer, marked heterogeneity exists within stage III patients. Recently, the lymph node ratio (LNR), defined as the ratio of the number of positive nodes over the total number of examined nodes, was proposed to stratify outcome in stage III patients. A systematic search was performed for studies examining the prognostic significance of the LNR in colon or rectal cancer. Individual studies were assessed for methodological quality and summary data extracted. Hazard ratios from multivariate analyses were entered in a fixed-effects meta-analysis model. In total, 16 studies were identified including 33,984 patients with stage III colon or rectal cancer. In all identified studies, the LNR was identified as an independent prognostic factor in patients with stage III cancer of the colon or rectum. The prognostic separation obtained by the LNR was superior to that of the number of positive nodes (N stage). The pooled hazard ratios for overall and disease-free survival were 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 2.14-2.61) and 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.38), respectively. The LNR allows superior prognostic stratification in stage III colorectal cancer and should be validated in prospective studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach.

              Cancer pathology reports contain information which is critical for patient management and for cancer surveillance, resource planning, and quality purposes. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has defined scientifically validated content of checklists that form the basis for synoptic cancer pathology reporting. We outline how the CAP standards were implemented in a large Canadian province over a 3-year period resulting in improvements in rates of synoptic reporting and completeness of cancer pathology reporting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                DSU
                Dig Surg
                10.1159/issn.0253-4886
                Digestive Surgery
                S. Karger AG
                0253-4886
                1421-9883
                2013
                June 2013
                10 April 2013
                : 30
                : 1
                : 1-11
                Affiliations
                aDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, and bDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                Author notes
                *Prof. Kjetil Søreide, MD, PhD, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, NO-4068 Stavanger (Norway), E-Mail ksoreide@mac.com
                Article
                349923 Dig Surg 2013;30:1-11
                10.1159/000349923
                23595092
                fa807aca-e720-42b2-8845-2dd8e858eda8
                © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 20 December 2012
                : 17 February 2013
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Pages: 11
                Categories
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy,Gastroenterology & Hepatology,Surgery,Nutrition & Dietetics,Internal medicine
                Molecular biology,Staging,Colon cancer,Lymph nodes,Sampling,Sentinel node,Quality,Surgery,Pathology,Volume

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content38

                Cited by12

                Most referenced authors925