Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Hepatobiliary Tumors

Comparison of Number Versus Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes in the Assessment of Lymph Node Status in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Authors: Jun Sakata, MD, Toshifumi Wakai, MD, Yasunobu Matsuda, MD, Taku Ohashi, MD, Yuki Hirose, MD, Hiroshi Ichikawa, MD, Takashi Kobayashi, MD, Masahiro Minagawa, MD, Shin-ichi Kosugi, MD, Yu Koyama, MD, Kouhei Akazawa, PhD, Yoichi Ajioka, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare the utility of the number of positive lymph nodes with the lymph node ratio (LNR) in predicting survival after resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 142 consecutive patients who underwent radical resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was performed. A total of 3066 regional lymph nodes were resected. The median number of nodes per patient was 21. The optimal cutoff values for the number of positive nodes and the LNR were determined using the Chi square scores calculated by the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

Nodal disease was found in 59 patients (42 %). In the subsequent analysis of the impact that nodal status has on survival, 18 patients with R1/2 resection and 6 patients with paraaortic nodal disease who did not survive for more than 5 years after resection were excluded. The optimal cutoff value for the number of positive nodes was 1, and the optimal cutoff value for the LNR was 5 %. Univariate analysis identified both the number of positive nodes (0, 1, or ≥2; P = 0.005) and the LNR (0, 0–5, or >5 %; P = 0.007) as significant prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis identified the number of positive nodes but not the LNR as an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.012). The 5-year survival rates were 64 % for the patients with no positive nodes, 46 % for the patients with one positive node, and 28 % for the patients with two or more positive nodes.

Conclusions

The number of positive lymph nodes predicts survival better than the LNR after resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, provided that nodal evaluation is sufficient.
Literature
1.
Wang J, Dang P, Raut CP, et al. Comparison of a lymph node ratio-based staging system with the 7th AJCC system for gastric cancer: analysis of 18,043 patients from the SEER database. Ann Surg. 2012;255:478–85.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Triboulet JP. The number of metastatic lymph nodes and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes are independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiation or lymphadenectomy extent. Ann Surg. 2008;247:365–71.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Rosenberg R, Engel J, Bruns C, et al. The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in a population-based collective of colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2010;251:1070–8.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A III (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
5.
Bhatti I, Peacock O, Awan AK, Semeraro D, Larvin M, Hall RI. Lymph node ratio versus number of affected lymph nodes as predictors of survival for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2010;34:768–75.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Riediger H, Keck T, Wellner U, zur Hausen A, Adam U, Hopt UT, et al. The lymph node ratio is the strongest prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1337–44.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Negi SS, Singh A, Chaudhary A. Lymph nodal involvement as prognostic factor in gallbladder cancer: location, count or ratio? J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1017–25.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, et al. Number of metastatic lymph nodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:196–204.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Sierzega M, Nowak K, Kulig J, Matyja A, Nowak W, Popiela T. Lymph node involvement in ampullary cancer: the importance of the number, ratio, and location of metastatic nodes. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:19–24.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T, Ajioka Y, Akazawa K, Hatakeyama K. Assessment of the nodal status in ampullary carcinoma: the number of positive lymph nodes versus the lymph node ratio. World J Surg. 2011;35:2118–24.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Shirai Y, Sakata J, Wakai T, Ohashi T, Ajioka Y, Hatakeyama K. Assessment of lymph node status in gallbladder cancer: location, number, or ratio of positive nodes. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Kawai M, Tani M, Kobayashi Y, et al. The ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes is an independent prognostic factor for patients with resectable middle and distal bile duct carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2010;199:447–52.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Campagnaro T, et al. Prognostic significance of lymph node ratio after resection of peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB. 2011;13:240–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Sasaki R, Takahashi M, Funato O, et al. Prognostic significance of lymph node involvement in middle and distal bile duct cancer. Surgery. 2001;129:677–83.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Yoshida T, Matsumoto T, Sasaki A, Morii Y, Aramaki M, Kitano S. Prognostic factors after pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for distal bile duct cancer. Arch Surg. 2002;137:69–73.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hong SM, Cho H, Lee OJ, Ro JY. The number of metastatic lymph nodes in extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma as a prognostic factor. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1177–83.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayashidani Y, Sudo T, Ohge H, Sueda T. Pancreatoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic impact of lymph node metastasis. World J Surg. 2007;31:337–42.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Aoba T, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, et al. Assessment of nodal status for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: location, number, or ratio of involved nodes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:718–25.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kiriyama M, Ebata T, Aoba T, Kaneoka Y, Arai T, Shimizu Y, et al. Prognostic impact of lymph node metastasis in distal cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2015;102:399–406.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Shirai Y, Wakai T, Sakata J, Hatakeyama K. Regional lymphadenectomy for gallbladder cancer: rational extent, technical details, and patient outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:2775–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Shirai Y, Wakai T, Hatakeyama K. Radical lymph node dissection for gallbladder cancer: indications and limitations. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2007;16:221–32.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, et al. (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
23.
DeOliveira ML, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-one-year experience with 564 patients at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2007;245:755–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Wakai T, Shirai Y, Moroda T, Yokoyama N, Hatakeyama K. Impact of ductal resection margin status on long-term survival in patients undergoing resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103:1210–6.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Igami T, Nagino M, Oda K, Nishio H, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, et al. Clinicopathologic study of cholangiocarcinoma with superficial spread. Ann Surg. 2009;249:296–302.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Peyre CG, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, et al. The number of lymph nodes removed predicts survival in esophageal cancer: an international study on the impact of extent of surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2008;248:549–56.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Konstadoulakis MM, Roayaie S, Gomatos IP, Labow D, Fiel MI, Miller CM, et al. Aggressive surgical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: is it justified? Audit of a single center’s experience. Am J Surg. 2008;196:160–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Juntermanns B, Sotiropoulos GC, Radunz S, et al. Comparison of the sixth and the seventh editions of the UICC classification for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:277–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Ito K, Ito H, Allen PJ, et al. Adequate lymph node assessment for extrahepatic bile duct adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2010;251:675–81.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Moyer VA. Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:433–41.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Son T, Hyung WJ, Lee JH, et al. Clinical implication of an insufficient number of examined lymph nodes after curative resection for gastric cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:4687–93.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Schwarz RE, Smith DD. Lymph node dissection impact on staging and survival of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, based on U.S. population data. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:158–65.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Kitagawa Y, Nagino M, Kamiya J, et al. Lymph node metastasis from hilar cholangiocarcinoma: audit of 110 patients who underwent regional and paraaortic node dissection. Ann Surg. 2001;233:385–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
35.
Capussotti L, Muratore A, Polastri R, Ferrero A, Massucco P. Liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: in-hospital mortality and long-term survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:641–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Number Versus Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes in the Assessment of Lymph Node Status in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Authors
Jun Sakata, MD
Toshifumi Wakai, MD
Yasunobu Matsuda, MD
Taku Ohashi, MD
Yuki Hirose, MD
Hiroshi Ichikawa, MD
Takashi Kobayashi, MD
Masahiro Minagawa, MD
Shin-ichi Kosugi, MD
Yu Koyama, MD
Kouhei Akazawa, PhD
Yoichi Ajioka, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4609-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2016 Go to the issue

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Histone Demethylase LSD1 Inhibitors Prevent Cell Growth by Regulating Gene Expression in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells

Endocrine Tumors

Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Impact of Surgical Margin Status on Long-Term Outcomes

Translational Research and Biomarkers

The Ability to Diagnose Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Definitively Using Novel Branched DNA-Enhanced Albumin RNA In Situ Hybridization Technology

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Effect of Duration of Ex Vivo Ischemia Time and Storage Period on RNA Quality in Biobanked Human Renal Cell Carcinoma Tissue

Colorectal Cancer

Treatment-Related Mortality After Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC in Patients with Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis is Underestimated by Conventional Parameters

Colorectal Cancer

Comparative Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Treatment Prior to Total Mesorectal Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Alone in Selected Stage II/III Low and Mid Rectal Cancer