4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical Implications of Extensive Lymph Node Metastases for Resected Pancreatic Cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 13, Pages 4004-4011

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6763-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundOutcomes of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) and extensive lymph node metastases have not been fully characterized.MethodsA total of 637 patients underwent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) between 2002 and 2014 at the Thomas Jefferson University. Positive lymph node count (LNC) and positive lymph node ratio (LNR) were analyzed as predictors of cancer-specific outcomes, with a focus on outcomes of patients with extensive lymph node burden.ResultsResected patients with regional lymph node metastases had a median survival of 17.1months (n=425, 70%) compared with 25.5months (n=185, 30%) for patients without lymph node spread (N0) (hazard ratio [HR]=1.9, p<0.001). Overall survival decremented with increased lymph node spread, but plateaued for LNC4 (HR 2.4 vs. N0, p<0.001) and LNR0.4 (HR 2.2, p<0.001). Compared with historical cohorts with macroscopic metastatic disease, as opposed to microscopic, superior long-term survival was achieved in patients with extensive lymph node metastases (LNC4); 24- and 36-month survivals were 25% (vs. 16%, p<0.001) and 12% (vs. 6%, p<0.001), respectively. Extensive lymph node burden was associated with increased baseline postoperative serum CA 19-9 (p=0.044) and systemic recurrence (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe prognostic impact of extensive lymph node spread after resection for PDA plateaus above a specific threshold (LNC4 or LNR0.4), supporting the new 8th edition AJCC criteria for N2 disease. Clinically, lymph node spread above this threshold seems to correlate with occult systemic disease (elevated postoperative CA 19-9 and systemic pattern of failure).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available