World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 2695–2703 | Cite as

Lymph Node Harvest in Colon Cancer: Influence of Microsatellite Instability and Proximal Tumor Location

  • Kjetil Søreide
  • Bjørn Steinar Nedrebø
  • Jon Arne Søreide
  • Aida Slewa
  • Hartwig Kørner



At least 12 harvested lymph nodes are recommended for proper staging of colon cancer. The effect of tumor-related factors associated with lymph node harvest is not well understood as data are lacking. We investigated tumor-related factors in relation to the number of lymph nodes harvested.


Patient and tumor characteristics were investigated in relation to harvested lymph nodes (LN ≥ 12), number of metastatic nodes, LN ratio (LNR), and prognosis with univariate and multivariate analyses.


An LN harvest ≥12 nodes was achieved in 36% of the patients. Having <12 nodes harvested was not associated with increased risk for locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, or decreased survival. Tumor size >5 cm, microsatellite instability (MSI), and proximal tumor location predicted a harvest of LN ≥ 12. The highest rate (54%) of LN ≥ 12 was found for MSI cancers [odds ratio (OR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–6.5; P = 0.011]. Multivariate analysis identified a proximal location as an independent factor of LN ≥ 12 (adjusted OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.5–8.2; P = 0.003), with MSI an independent factor in stage II to III colon cancer (adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1–6.0; P = 0.026). To determine the best prognosticator, LNR was the only significant factor in the multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.9 (95% CI 1.1–7.8; P = 0.038) for LNR 0.01–0.17 and an HR of 5.8 (95% CI 2.5–13.1; P < 0.001).


Proximal tumor location and microsatellite instability are associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, pointing to possible underlying genetic and immunologic mechanisms. The LNR is an independent prognostic variable for colon cancer.


  1. 1.
    Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM et al (2007) Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:433–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright FC, Law CH, Berry S et al (2009) Clinically important aspects of lymph node assessment in colon cancer. J Surg Oncol 99:248–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cianchi F, Palomba A, Boddi V et al (2002) Lymph node recovery from colorectal tumor specimens: recommendation for a minimum number of lymph nodes to be examined. World J Surg 26:384–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baxter NN (2009) Is lymph node count an ideal quality indicator for cancer care? J Surg Oncol 99:265–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simunovic M, Baxter NN (2007) Lymph node counts in colon cancer surgery: lessons for users of quality indicators. JAMA 298:2194–2195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ricciardi R, Baxter NN (2007) Association versus causation versus quality improvement: setting benchmarks for lymph node evaluation in colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:414–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang J, Kulaylat M, Rockette H et al (2009) Should total number of lymph nodes be used as a quality of care measure for stage III colon cancer? Ann Surg 249:559–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong SL, Ji H, Hollenbeck BK et al (2007) Hospital lymph node examination rates and survival after resection for colon cancer. JAMA 298:2149–2154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaw A, Collins EE, Fakis A et al (2008) Colorectal surgeons and biomedical scientists improve lymph node harvest in colorectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 12:295–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans MD, Barton K, Rees A et al (2008) The impact of surgeon and pathologist on lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer and its impact on survival for patients with Dukes’ stage B disease. Colorectal Dis 10:157–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Law CH et al (2008) A randomized controlled trial to improve lymph node assessment in stage II colon cancer. Arch Surg 143:1050–1055; discussion 1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Søreide K, Janssen EA, Søiland H et al (2006) Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 93:395–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Søreide K, Slewa A, Stokkeland PJ et al (2009) Microsatellite instability and DNA ploidy in colorectal cancer: potential implications for patients undergoing systematic surveillance after resection. Cancer 115:271–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kørner H, Søreide K, Stokkeland PJ et al (2005) Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: a population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance. J Gastrointest Surg 9:320–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bjugn R, Dirdal HU (2001) Colorectal cancer—experiences with the use of standardized forms for reporting pathologic–anatomic data. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 121:1697–1701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang J, Hassett JM, Dayton MT et al (2008) Lymph node ratio: role in the staging of node-positive colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1600–1608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Ridder M, Vinh-Hung V, Van Nieuwenhove Y et al (2006) Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio in node positive colon cancer. Gut 55:1681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg R, Friederichs J, Schuster T et al (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 248:968–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kørner H, Søreide K, Stokkeland PJ et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of serum-carcinoembryonic antigen in recurrent colorectal cancer: a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 14:417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baxter NN, Morris AM, Rothenberger DA et al (2005) Impact of preoperative radiation for rectal cancer on subsequent lymph node evaluation: a population-based analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:426–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buhard O, Suraweera N, Lectard A et al (2004) Quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats for high-level microsatellite instability analysis. Dis Markers 20:251–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M et al (2002) Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 123:1804–1811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindor NM, Smalley R, Barker M et al (2006) Ascending the learning curve: MSI testing experience of a six-laboratory consortium. Cancer Biomark 2:5–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Søreide K (2007) Molecular testing for microsatellite instability and DNA mismatch repair defects in hereditary and sporadic colorectal cancers: ready for prime time? Tumour Biol 28:290–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinkowish MD (2009) Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure. CA Cancer J Clin 59:2–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hsu CW, Lin CH, Wang JH et al (2009) Factors that influence 12 or more harvested lymph nodes in early-stage colorectal cancer. World J Surg 33:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baxter NN, Virnig DJ, Rothenberger DA et al (2005) Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bui L, Rempel E, Reeson D et al (2006) Lymph node counts, rates of positive lymph nodes, and patient survival for colon cancer surgery in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study. J Surg Oncol 93:439–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright FC, Law CH, Last L et al (2003) Lymph node retrieval and assessment in stage II colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 10:903–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tekkis PP, Smith JJ, Heriot AG et al (2006) A national study on lymph node retrieval in resectional surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1673–1683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Søreide K (2009) Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarker research. J Clin Pathol 62:1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tsai HL, Lu CY, Hsieh JS et al (2007) The prognostic significance of total lymph node harvest in patients with T2–4N0M0 colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 11:660–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vather R, Sammour T, Kahokehr A et al (2009) Lymph node evaluation and long-term survival in stage II and stage III colon cancer: a national study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:585–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Søreide K, Nedrebo BS, Knapp JC et al (2009) Evolving molecular classification by genomic and proteomic biomarkers in colorectal cancer: potential implications for the surgical oncologist. Surg Oncol 18:31–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phillips SM, Banerjea A, Feakins R et al (2004) Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability are activated and cytotoxic. Br J Surg 91:469–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alexander J, Watanabe T, Wu TT et al (2001) Histopathological identification of colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Am J Pathol 158:527–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smyrk TC, Watson P, Kaul K et al (2001) Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a marker for microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 91:2417–2422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pages F, Berger A, Camus M et al (2005) Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 353:2654–2666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F et al (2006) Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313:1960–1964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson PM, Porter GA, Ricciardi R et al (2006) Increasing negative lymph node count is independently associated with improved long-term survival in stage IIIB and IIIC colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3570–3575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    George S, Primrose J, Talbot R et al (2006) Will Rogers revisited: prospective observational study of survival of 3592 patients with colorectal cancer according to number of nodes examined by pathologists. Br J Cancer 95:841–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Norwood MG, Sutton A, West K, et al (2009) Lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer resection specimens: national standards are achievable, and low numbers are associated with reduced survival. Colorectal Dis Feb 4 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Titu LV, Tweedle E, Rooney PS (2008) High tie of the inferior mesenteric artery in curative surgery for left colonic and rectal cancers: a systematic review. Dig Surg 25:148–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lemmens VE, van Lijnschoten I, Janssen-Heijnen ML et al (2006) Pathology practice patterns affect lymph node evaluation and outcome of colon cancer: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 17:1803–1809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK (1985) The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 312:1604–1608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tsikitis VL, Larson DL, Wolff BG et al (2009) Survival in stage III colon cancer is independent of the total number of lymph nodes retrieved. J Am Coll Surg 208:42–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kjetil Søreide
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bjørn Steinar Nedrebø
    • 1
  • Jon Arne Søreide
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aida Slewa
    • 3
  • Hartwig Kørner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of PathologyStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations