Reassessment of the Optimal Number of Examined Lymph Nodes in Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
12
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to reappraise the optimal number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The well-established threshold of 15 ELNs in PD for PDAC is optimized for detecting 1 positive node (PLN) per the previous 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual. In the framework of the 8th edition, where at least 4 PLN are needed for an N2 diagnosis, this threshold may be inadequate for accurate staging. Patients who underwent upfront PD at 2 academic institutions between 2000 and 2016 were analyzed. The optimal ELN threshold was defined as the cut-point associated with a 95% probability of identifying at least 4 PLNs in N2 patients. The results were validated addressing the N-status distribution and stage migration. Overall, 1218 patients were included. The median number of ELN was 26 (IQR 17-37). ELN was independently associated with N2-status (OR 1.27, P < 0.001). The estimated optimal threshold of ELN was 28. This cut-point enabled improved detection of N2 patients and stage III disease (58% vs 37%, P = 0.001). The median survival was 28.6 months. There was an improved survival in N0/N1 patients when ELN exceeded 28, suggesting a stage migration effect (47 vs 29 months, adjusted HR 0.649, P < 0.001). In N2 patients, this threshold was not associated with survival on multivariable analysis. Examining at least 28 LN in PD for PDAC ensures optimal staging through improved detection of N2/stage III disease. This may have relevant implications for benchmarking processes and quality implementation.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to reappraise the optimal number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
The well-established threshold of 15 ELNs in PD for PDAC is optimized for detecting 1 positive node (PLN) per the previous 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual. In the framework of the 8th edition, where at least 4 PLN are needed for an N2 diagnosis, this threshold may be inadequate for accurate staging.
METHODS
Patients who underwent upfront PD at 2 academic institutions between 2000 and 2016 were analyzed. The optimal ELN threshold was defined as the cut-point associated with a 95% probability of identifying at least 4 PLNs in N2 patients. The results were validated addressing the N-status distribution and stage migration.
RESULTS
Overall, 1218 patients were included. The median number of ELN was 26 (IQR 17-37). ELN was independently associated with N2-status (OR 1.27, P < 0.001). The estimated optimal threshold of ELN was 28. This cut-point enabled improved detection of N2 patients and stage III disease (58% vs 37%, P = 0.001). The median survival was 28.6 months. There was an improved survival in N0/N1 patients when ELN exceeded 28, suggesting a stage migration effect (47 vs 29 months, adjusted HR 0.649, P < 0.001). In N2 patients, this threshold was not associated with survival on multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSION
Examining at least 28 LN in PD for PDAC ensures optimal staging through improved detection of N2/stage III disease. This may have relevant implications for benchmarking processes and quality implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33177357
pii: 00000658-202211000-00062
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004552
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e518-e526Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interests.
Références
Malleo G, Maggino L, Ferrone CR, et al. Reappraising the concept of conditional survival after pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a bi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg. 2020;271:1148–1155.
Lim JE, Chien MW, Earle CC. Prognostic factors following curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a population-based, linked database analysis of 396 patients. Ann Surg. 2003;237:74–85.
Groot VP, Gemenetzis G, Blair AB, et al. Defining and predicting early recurrence in 957 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2019;269:1154–1162.
Malleo G, Maggino L, Ferrone CR, et al. Does site matter? Impact of tumor location on pathologic characteristics, recurrence and survival of resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1245/s10434–020–08354–4.
Huebner M, Kendrick M, Reid-Lombardo KM, et al. Number of lymph nodes evaluated: prognostic value in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:920–926.
Valsangkar NP, Bush DM, Michaelson JS, et al. N0/N1, PNL, orLNR?The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:257–266.
Tomlinson JS, Jain S, Bentrem DJ, et al. Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg. 2019;269:621–630.
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2019 version 3.
Schwarz RE, Smith DD. Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1189–1200.
Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL, et al. Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:165–174.
Hellan M, Sun C-L, Artinyan A, et al. The impact of lymph node number on survival in patients with lymph node-negative pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2008;37:19–24.
Tol JAMG, Gouma DJ, Bassi C, et al. Definition of a standard lymphadenec-tomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156:591–600.
Ducreux M, Cuhna ASa, Caramella C, et al. Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:v56–v68.
van Roessel S, Kasumova GG, Verheij J, et al. International validation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018;e183617.
Edge SB. American Joint Committee on Cancer, eds. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed, New York: Springer; 2010.
Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. In: AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed., New York: Springer; 2018.
Malleo G, Maggino L, Capelli P, et al. Reappraisal of nodal staging and study of lymph node station involvement in pancreaticoduodenectomy with the standard international study group of pancreatic surgery definition of lymphadenectomy for cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:367–379.
Strobel O, Hinz U, Gluth A, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: number of positive nodes allows to distinguish several N categories. Ann Surg. 2015;261:961–969.
Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, et al. Number of metastatic lymphnodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:196–204.
Malleo G, Maggino L, Marchegiani G, et al. Pancreatectomy with venous resection for pT3 head adenocarcinoma: perioperative outcomes, recurrence pattern and prognostic implications of histologically confirmed vascular infiltration. Pancreatology. 2017;17:847–857.
Malleo G, Maggino L, Ferrone CR, et al. Number of examined lymph nodes and nodal status assessment in distal pancreatectomy for body/tail ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2019;270:1138–1146.
Wang W, Shen Z, Shi Y, et al. Accuracy of nodal positivity in inadequate lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adeno-carcinoma: a population study using the US SEER database. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1386.
Warschkow R, Widmann B, Beutner U, et al. The more the better—lower rate of stage migration and better survival in patients with retrieval of 20 or more regional lymph nodes in pancreatic cancer: a population-based propensity score matched and trend SEER analysis. Pancreas. 2019;269:621–630.
Huang L, Jansen L, Balavarca Y, et al. Significance of examined lymph node number in accurate staging and long-term survival in resected stage I-II pancreatic cancer—more is better? A large international population-based cohort study. Ann Surg. 2021;275:e554–e563.
Hua J, Zhang B, Xu J, et al. Determining the optimal number of examined lymph nodes for accurate staging of pancreatic cancer: An analysis using the nodal staging score model. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1069–1076.
Arrington AK, Price ET, Golisch K, et al. Pancreatic cancer lymph node resection revisited: a novel calculation of number of lymph nodes required. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228:662–669.
Eskander MF, de Geus SW, Kasumova GG, et al. Evolution and impact of lymph node dissection during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2017;161:968–976.
Pedrazzoli S, DiCarlo V, Dionigi R, et al. Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg. 1998;228:508–517.
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adeno-carcinoma: comparison of morbidity and mortality and short-term outcome. Ann Surg. 1999;229:613–622.
Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarci-noma. Surgery. 2005;138:618–630.
Nimura Y, Nagino M, Takao S, et al. Standard versus extended lymphadenec-tomy in radical pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: long-term results of a Japanese multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:230–241.
Jang J-Y, Kang MJ, Heo JS, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study comparing outcomes of standard resection and extended resection, Including dissection of the nerve plexus and various lymph nodes, in patients with pancreatic head cancer. Ann Surg. 2014;259:656–664.
Wang W, He Y, Wu L, et al. Efficacy of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocar-cinoma. An update meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2019;19:1074–1080.
De Marco C, Biondi A, Ricci R. N staging: the role of the pathologist. Transi Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:10–110.
Parkash V, Bifulco C, Feinn R, et al. To count and how to count, that is the question: interobserver and intraobserver variability among pathologists in lymph node counting. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134:42–49.
Sherbeck JP, Zhao L, Lieberman RW. High variability in lymph node counts among an international cohort of pathologists: questioning the scientific validity of node counts. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:395–401.
Chaudhry IH, Campbell F. An audit of pathology lymph node dissection techniques in pylorus preserving Kausch-Whipple pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:758–761.
Evans MD, Robinson S, Badiani S, et al. Same surgeon: differentcentre equals differing lymph node harvest following colorectal cancer resection. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:1–6.
Jeyarajah DR, Khithani A, Siripurapu V, et al. Lymph node retrieval in pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens: does educating the pathologist matter? HPB. 2014;16:263–266.
Soer E, Brosens L, van de Vijver M, et al. Dilemmas for the pathologist in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens: an overview of different grossing approaches and the relevance of the histopathological characteristics in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2018;472:533–543.
Adsay NV, Basturk O, Altinel D, et al. The number of lymph nodes identified in a simple pancreatoduodenectomy specimen: comparison of conventional vs orange-peeling approach in pathologic assessment. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:107–112.