Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 903–909 | Cite as

Lymph Node Retrieval and Assessment in Stage II Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study

  • F. C. Wright
  • C. H. L. Law
  • L. Last
  • M. Khalifa
  • A. Arnaout
  • Z. Naseer
  • N. Klar
  • S. Gallinger
  • A. J. Smith
Original Articles

Abstract

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III (node-positive) colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality by one third. Retrieval of an inadequate number of lymph nodes in the surgical specimen may result in incorrectly designating some patients as stage II (node negative), and consequently, such patients may not be offered appropriate chemotherapy. Recent National Cancer Institute guidelines suggest that a minimum of 12 nodes should be examined to ensure accurate staging.

Methods: This population-based study identified stage II (T3N0 and T4N0) CRC cases by using CRC pathology reports (1997–2000) from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Patients aged 19 to 75 years were identified, and demographic, surgical, pathologic, and hospital data were extracted. Factors relating to the number of lymph nodes assessed were examined.

Results: A total of 8848 CRC cases were reviewed, and 1789 stage II cases were identified. Seventy-three percent of cases were designated as node negative on the basis of assessment of <12 lymph nodes. Multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor size, specimen length, use of a pathology template, and academic status of the hospital were significant predictors of the number of lymph nodes assessed.

Conclusions: A subset of patients with CRC in Ontario were assigned stage II disease on the basis of examination of relatively few lymph nodes.

Key Words

Colorectal cancer Staging Lymph node assessment Population study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute of Canada.2001Canadian Cancer Statistics 2001.National Cancer Institute of CanadaToronto:19Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society2002Surveillance researchCancer Facts & Figures.American Cancer SocietyAtlanta, GA:4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Troisi RJ, Freedman AN, Devesa SS. Incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the U.S.: an update of trends by gender, race, age, subsite, and stage, 1975–1994. Cancer 1999;85:1670–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Compton CC. Pathology report in colon cancer: what is prognostically important? Dig Dis 1999;17:67–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. Fluorouracil plus levamisole as effective adjuvant therapy after resection of stage III colon carcinoma: a final report. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:321–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322:352–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolmark N, Rockette H, Mamounas E, et al. Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3553–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nascimbeni R, Burgart LJ, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR. Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:200–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scott KW, Grace RH. Detection of lymph node metastases in colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg 1989;76:1165–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fielding LP, Arsenault PA, Chapuis PH, et al. Clinicopathological staging for colorectal cancer: an International Documentation System (IDS) and an International Comprehensive Anatomical Terminology (ICAT). J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1991;6:325–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong JH, Severino R, Honnebier MB, Tom P, Namiki TS. Number of nodes examined and staging accuracy in colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2896–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldstein NS, Sanford W, Coffey M, Layfield LJ. Lymph node recovery from colorectal resection specimens removed for adenocarcinoma. Trends over time and a recommendation for a minimum number of lymph nodes to be recovered. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;106:209–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:583–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Law CHL, Rapanos T, Al Zahrani M, Hanna SS, Smith AJ. The impact of lymph node retrieval on the prognosis of stage II colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9(Suppl):S65.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caplin S, Cerottini JP, Bosman FT, Constanda MT, Givel JC. For patients with Dukes’ B (TNM stage II) colorectal carcinoma, examination of six or fewer lymph nodes is related to poor prognosis. Cancer 1998;83:666–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prandi M, Lionetto R, Bini A, et al. Prognostic evaluation of stage B colon cancer patients is improved by an adequate lymphadenectomy: results of a secondary analysis of a large scale adjuvant trial. Ann Surg 2002;235:458–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bull AD, Biffin AH, Mella J, et al. Colorectal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit. J Clin Pathol 1997;50:138–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maurel J, Launoy G, Grosclaude P, et al. Lymph node harvest reporting in patients with carcinoma of the large bowel: a French population-based study. Cancer 1998;82:1482–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statistics Canada.2002Estimates of Population by Age and Sex for Canada, the Provinces and the Territories.Statistics CanadaOttawa, Canada:25Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Black, RJSimonate, LStorm, HHDemaret, E eds. 1998Automated Data Collection in Cancer Registration.World Health OrganizationLyon:3944Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joo JS, Amarnath L, Wexner SD. Is laparoscopic resection of colorectal polyps beneficial? Surg Endosc 1998;12:1341–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franklin ME Jr, Rosenthal D, Abrego-Medina D, et al. Prospective comparison of open vs. laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma. Five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:S35–S46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA, Mackeigan JM, Mazier WP. Open colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy: are there differences? Am Surg 1993;59:549–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SAS Institute Inc.1999SAS/STAT User’s Guide Version 8.29SAS Institute Inc.Cary, NC13651464Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McArdle CS, Hole D. Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. BMJ 1991;302:1501–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scott KW, Grace RH, Gibbons P. Five-year follow-up study of the fat clearance technique in colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:126–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koren R, Siegal A, Klein B, et al. Lymph node-revealing solution: simple new method for detecting minute lymph nodes in colon carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:407–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galvis CO, Raab SS, D’Amico F, Grzybicki DM. Pathologists’ assistants practice: a measurement of performance. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:816–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murray D, Hreno A, Dutton J, Hampson LG. Prognosis in colon cancer: a pathologic reassessment. Arch Surg 1975;110:908–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patt DJ, Brynes RK, Vardiman JW, Coppleson LW. Mesocolic lymph node histology is an important prognostic indicator for patients with carcinoma of the sigmoid colon: an immunomorphologic study. Cancer 1975;35:1388–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Recommendations for the reporting of resected large intestinal carcinomas. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Mod Pathol 1996;9:73–6.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA. The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 1998;51:481–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, et al. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:979–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Compton CC. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the colon and rectum, excluding carcinoid tumors, lymphomas, sarcomas, and tumors of the vermiform appendix: a basis for checklists. Cancer Committee. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1016–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith AJ, Law CHL, Khalifa MA, et al. Multimodal CME for surgeons and pathologists improves colon cancer staging. J Cancer Educ 2003;18;:81–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simunovic M, To T, Baxter N, et al. Hospital procedure volume and teaching status do not influence treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:324–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Surgical Oncology, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. C. Wright
    • 1
  • C. H. L. Law
    • 1
  • L. Last
    • 2
  • M. Khalifa
    • 2
  • A. Arnaout
    • 1
  • Z. Naseer
    • 3
  • N. Klar
    • 3
  • S. Gallinger
    • 4
  • A. J. Smith
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer CentreTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Cancer Care OntarioTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Mount Sinai HospitalNew York
  5. 5.Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations