4.5 Article

The role of hepatic artery lymph node in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: prognostic factor or a selection criterion for surgery

Journal

HPB
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 1051-1055

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12306

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundHepatic artery lymph node (HALN) metastasis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma reportedly confers a survival disadvantage. This has led some authors to propose it as an indicator against pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent PD during 2002-2012 were identified from the University of Louisville prospective hepatopancreaticobiliary database. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression were used in further analyses. ResultsA total of 420 patients underwent PD during the period of study, of whom 197 had lymph node (LN) metastasis. Among these, 41 (20.8%) patients had disease-positive HALNs. The HALN was the only site of LN metastasis in only three of the 247 patients (1.2%). Median follow-up was 18.5 months (interquartile range: 4.1-28.2 months). Median OS and DFS were 22.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.0-26.3] and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.2-15.2). There was no significant difference in median OS between HALN-positive patients (18.4 months, 95% CI 12.3-24.0) and HALN-negative patients (19.7 months, 95% CI 16.7-22.6) (P = 0.659). On multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of death was highest among patients with an LN ratio of >0.2 (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.29; P = 0.012) followed by those with poorly differentiated histology (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.11; P = 0.029). ConclusionsIn pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with LN disease, survival after PD is comparable regardless of HALN status. Therefore, HALN-positive disease should not preclude the performance of PD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available