Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of three classifications for lymph node evaluation in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The present study compared the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) and the 6th and the 7th TNM edition as three different lymph node classifications for rectal cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 630 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer between October 2001 and December 2007 were included. Prognostic factors of overall survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

The median follow-up was 36.1 months and the 5-year overall survival rate was 70.3 ± 4.7%. The median number of lymph nodes was 15.0 (12.0–19.0). All three lymph node evaluations correlated with survival (p < 0.0001). The assessment of nodal status in the 7th TNM edition enabled further prognostic stratification. The prognostic value of the three classifications were independent of neoadjuvant therapy and lymph node count. On multivariate analyses, the N2 stage of the 6th TNM edition (Hazard ratio 2.08; 95% confidence interval 1.21–3.58) and the N2b stage of the 7th TNM edition (2.18; 1.17–4.07) correlated with poor survival. A LNR of 0.42–0.69 was also associated with unfavorable prognosis (2.97; 1.46–6.03), as was an LNR > 0.69 (2.51; 1.04–6.05). The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications.

Conclusions

The evaluated lymph node classifications were of comparable prognostic utility in patients with rectal cancer. The LNR did not provide prognostic information in addition to the N stage of the TNM classifications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Phillips RK, Hittinger R, Blesovsky L, Fry JS, Fielding LP (1984) Local recurrence following 'curative' surgery for large bowel cancer: II. The rectum and rectosigmoid. Br J Surg 71(1):17–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS (1986) Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 2(8514):996–999

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1(8496):1479–1482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B (2001) The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer 92(4):896–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rahbari NN, Ulrich AB, Bruckner T, Munter M, Nickles A, Contin P, Loffler T, Reissfelder C, Koch M, Buchler MW, Weitz J (2011) Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer in the era of total mesorectal excision: is there still a chance for cure? Ann Surg 253(3):522–533. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182096d4f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rahbari NN, Aigner M, Thorlund K, Mollberg N, Motschall E, Jensen K, Diener MK, Buchler MW, Koch M, Weitz J (2010) Meta-analysis shows that detection of circulating tumor cells indicates poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology

  7. Weitz J, Koch M, Debus J, Hohler T, Galle PR, Buchler MW (2005) Colorectal cancer. Lancet 365(9454):153–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freedman LS, Macaskill P, Smith AN (1984) Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for operable rectal cancer. Lancet 2(8405):733–736

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Park JK, Kim YW, Hur H, Kim NK, Min BS, Sohn SK, Choi YD, Kim YT, Ahn JB, Roh JK, Keum KC, Seong JS (2009) Prognostic factors affecting oncologic outcomes in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: impact of patterns of pelvic recurrence on curative resection. Langenbecks ArchSurg 394(1):71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Staib L, Link KH, Blatz A, Beger HG (2002) Surgery of colorectal cancer: surgical morbidity and five- and ten-year results in 2400 patients—monoinstitutional experience. World J Surg 26(1):59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2002) UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours, vol 6th. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours, vol 7th. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berger AC, Sigurdson ER, LeVoyer T, Hanlon A, Mayer RJ, Macdonald JS, Catalano PJ, Haller DG (2005) Colon cancer survival is associated with decreasing ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 23(34):8706–8712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Ridder M, Vinh-Hung V, Van NY, Hoorens A, Sermeus A, Storme G (2006) Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio in node positive colon cancer. Gut 55(11):1681

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenberg R, Friederichs J, Schuster T, Gertler R, Maak M, Becker K, Grebner A, Ulm K, Hofler H, Nekarda H, Siewert JR (2008) Prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer is associated with lymph node ratio: a single-center analysis of 3,026 patients over a 25-year time period. Ann Surg 248(6):968–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peschaud F, Benoist S, Julie C, Beauchet A, Penna C, Rougier P, Nordlinger B (2008) The ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes is a powerful independent prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 248(6):1067–1073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J (2007) Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94(2):232–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenberg R, Engel J, Bruns C, Heitland W, Hermes N, Jauch KW, Kopp R, Putterich E, Ruppert R, Schuster T, Friess H, Holzel D (2010) The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in a population-based collective of colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg 251(6):1070–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY (2004) Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(19):1420–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Cutsem E, Oliveira J (2009) Primary colon cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up. AnnOncol 20 Suppl 4:49–50

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schmiegel W, Reinacher-Schick A, Arnold D, Graeven U, Heinemann V, Porschen R, Riemann J, Rodel C, Sauer R, Wieser M, Schmitt W, Schmoll HJ, Seufferlein T, Kopp I, Pox C (2008) Update S3-guideline “colorectal cancer” 2008. Z Gastroenterol 46(8):799–840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Merkel S, Mansmann U, Papadopoulos T, Wittekind C, Hohenberger W, Hermanek P (2001) The prognostic inhomogeneity of colorectal carcinomas stage III: a proposal for subdivision of stage III. Cancer 92(11):2754–2759

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Greene FL, Stewart AK, Norton HJ (2002) A new TNM staging strategy for node-positive (stage III) colon cancer: an analysis of 50,042 patients. Ann Surg 236(4):416–421

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Greene FL, Stewart AK, Norton HJ (2004) New tumor-node-metastasis staging strategy for node-positive (stage III) rectal cancer: an analysis. J Clin Oncol 22(10):1778–1784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, Couture J, Fleshman J, Guillem J, Miedema B, Ota D, Sargent D (2001) Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(8):583–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Moyer VA (2007) Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(6):433–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hashiguchi Y, Hase K, Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Kajiwara Y, Ichikura T, Yamamoto J (2010) Prognostic significance of the number of lymph nodes examined in colon cancer surgery: clinical application beyond simple measurement. Ann Surg 251(5):872–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tepper JE, O'Connell MJ, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Compton C, Benson AB III, Cummings B, Gunderson L, Macdonald JS, Mayer RJ (2001) Impact of number of nodes retrieved on outcome in patients with rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(1):157–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim YW, Kim NK, Min BS, Lee KY, Sohn SK, Cho CH (2009) The influence of the number of retrieved lymph nodes on staging and survival in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing tumor-specific mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 249(6):965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdel-Misih SR, Wei L, Benson AB 3rd, Cohen S, Lai L, Skibber J, Wilkinson N, Weiser M, Schrag D, Bekaii-Saab T (2016) Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer affects lymph node yield and status without clear implications on outcome: the case for eliminating a metric and using preoperative staging to guide therapy. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw: JNCCN 14(12):1528–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moug SJ, Saldanha JD, McGregor JR, Balsitis M, Diament RH (2009) Positive lymph node retrieval ratio optimises patient staging in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 100(10):1530–1533

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dekker JW, Peeters KC, Putter H, Vahrmeijer AL, van de Velde CJ (2010) Metastatic lymph node ratio in stage III rectal cancer; prognostic significance in addition to the 7th edition of the TNM classification. Eur J Surg Oncol

  33. Thorn CC, Woodcock NP, Scott N, Verbeke C, Scott SB, Ambrose NS (2004) What factors affect lymph node yield in surgery for rectal cancer? Color Dis 6(5):356–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mekenkamp LJ, van Krieken JH, Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ, Nagtegaal ID (2009) Lymph node retrieval in rectal cancer is dependent on many factors—the role of the tumor, the patient, the surgeon, the radiotherapist, and the pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol 33(10):1547–1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Morcos B, Baker B, Al MM, Haddad H, Hashem S (2010) Lymph node yield in rectal cancer surgery: effect of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(4):345–349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ha YH, Jeong SY, Lim SB, Choi HS, Hong YS, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Park JG (2010) Influence of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 252(2):336–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Klein KE, Hermans J, van de Velde CJ, Leer JW, van Krieken JH (2001) No downstaging after short-term preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 19(7):1976–1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Johannes Fritzmann and Pietro Contin contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    Johannes Fritzmann, Christoph Reissfelder, Jürgen Weitz & Nuh N. Rahbari

  2. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Pietro Contin, Markus W. Büchler & Alexis B. Ulrich

Authors
  1. Johannes Fritzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pietro Contin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Reissfelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jürgen Weitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nuh N. Rahbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexis B. Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Fritzmann.

Ethics declarations

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fritzmann, J., Contin, P., Reissfelder, C. et al. Comparison of three classifications for lymph node evaluation in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403, 451–462 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-018-1662-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-018-1662-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation