Improved Tissue Processing in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Allows Histological Analysis of All Surgically Removed Lymph Nodes with Significant Effects on Nodal UICC Stages.
Acetone compression
Esophageal adenocarcinoma
Esophagectomy
Lymph nodes
UICC stage
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
04
09
2020
accepted:
16
11
2020
pubmed:
12
12
2020
medline:
10
6
2021
entrez:
11
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In esophageal carcinoma, the numbers of metastatic and total removed lymph nodes (LN) are well-established variables of long-term prognosis. The overall rate of retrieved LN depends on neoadjuvant treatment, the extent of surgical lymphadenectomy, and the modality of the pathological workup. The question in this study is whether technically extended histopathological preparation can increase the number of detected (metastatic) LN with an impact on nodal UICC staging. A cohort of 77 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma was treated with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy including standardized two-field lymphadenectomy. The specimens were grossed, and all manually detectable LN were retrieved. The remaining tissue was completely embedded by the advanced "acetone compression" retrieval technique. The primary outcome parameter was the total number of detected lymph nodes before and after acetone workup. A mean number of 23,1 LN was diagnosed after standard manual LN preparation. With complete embedding of the fatty tissue using acetone compression, the number increased to 40.5 lymph nodes (p < 0.0001). The mean number of metastatic LN increased from 3.2 to 4.2 nodal metastases following acetone compression (p < 0.0001). Additional LN metastases which caused a change in the primary (y)pN stage were found in ten patients (13.0%). Advanced lymph node retrieval by acetone compression allows a reliable statement on the real number of removed LN. Results demonstrate an impact on the nodal UICC stage. A future multicenter study will examine the prognostic impact of improved lymph node retrieval on long-term oncologic outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In esophageal carcinoma, the numbers of metastatic and total removed lymph nodes (LN) are well-established variables of long-term prognosis. The overall rate of retrieved LN depends on neoadjuvant treatment, the extent of surgical lymphadenectomy, and the modality of the pathological workup. The question in this study is whether technically extended histopathological preparation can increase the number of detected (metastatic) LN with an impact on nodal UICC staging.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
A cohort of 77 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma was treated with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy including standardized two-field lymphadenectomy. The specimens were grossed, and all manually detectable LN were retrieved. The remaining tissue was completely embedded by the advanced "acetone compression" retrieval technique. The primary outcome parameter was the total number of detected lymph nodes before and after acetone workup.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A mean number of 23,1 LN was diagnosed after standard manual LN preparation. With complete embedding of the fatty tissue using acetone compression, the number increased to 40.5 lymph nodes (p < 0.0001). The mean number of metastatic LN increased from 3.2 to 4.2 nodal metastases following acetone compression (p < 0.0001). Additional LN metastases which caused a change in the primary (y)pN stage were found in ten patients (13.0%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Advanced lymph node retrieval by acetone compression allows a reliable statement on the real number of removed LN. Results demonstrate an impact on the nodal UICC stage. A future multicenter study will examine the prognostic impact of improved lymph node retrieval on long-term oncologic outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33305335
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09450-1
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-09450-1
pmc: PMC8184552
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3975-3982Références
J Clin Pathol. 2015 Jun;68(6):458-64
pubmed: 25779094
Esophagus. 2017;14(1):1-36
pubmed: 28111535
Gastric Cancer. 2011 Jun;14(2):101-12
pubmed: 21573743
World J Surg. 2002 May;26(5):584-7
pubmed: 12098049
Z Gastroenterol. 2015 Nov;53(11):1288-347
pubmed: 26562403
Ann Surg. 2010 Nov;252(5):744-9
pubmed: 21037429
Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Feb;36(2):202-13
pubmed: 22251939
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005 Sep;17(6):448-55
pubmed: 16149289
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):681-92
pubmed: 21684205
Dis Esophagus. 2009;22(1):1-8
pubmed: 19196264
Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):336-40
pubmed: 20647928
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr 28;16(16):1986-92
pubmed: 20419835
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1697-1708
pubmed: 27776843
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1090-1098
pubmed: 26254683
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):814-821
pubmed: 28796646
Ann Surg. 2008 Oct;248(4):549-56
pubmed: 18936567
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84
pubmed: 22646630
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016 Dec;7(6):946-957
pubmed: 28078118
Ann Surg. 2014 Nov;260(5):779-84; discussion 784-5
pubmed: 25379849
Ann Surg. 2015 May;261(5):902-8
pubmed: 25361220
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 10;380(2):152-162
pubmed: 30625052
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):291-298
pubmed: 29206677
World J Surg. 2010 Apr;34(4):738-43
pubmed: 20098986
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Feb;13(2):269-74
pubmed: 18850250
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957
pubmed: 30982686