Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting lymph node yield from patients undergoing colectomy for cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Lymph node (LN) yield is a critical component of colon cancer staging and is often a surrogate for quality assessment in surgery. We investigated the impact of pathologists’ training on LN harvest.

Methods

This is a retrospective review on 137 patients undergoing elective colectomy for adenocarcinoma at a single institution from 2008 to 2009. We studied surgeon-, patient- and pathologist-derived factors, and identified independent variables affecting LN yield using logistic regression.

Results

LN yield was similar between open and laparoscopic resections (21 versus 23, p = 0.54). Similarly, nodal counts were independent of tumor location (p = 0.08) and no difference was noted between colorectal and general surgeons (24 versus 21, p = 0.31). Strikingly, the number of LNs reported by PGY-1 pathology residents was significantly higher than those with two or more years of training (24 versus 19, p = 0.02). On logistic regression, only the reporting pathologists’ year in training remained a significant predictor of the number of nodes reported (OR = 5.28, p = 0.0001).

Conclusions

LN retrieval in patients with colon cancer is inversely related to the interpreting pathologists’ level of training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. O'Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY (2004) Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(19):1420–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL et al (2003) Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 21(15):2912–2919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Palis BE et al (2008) Adequacy and importance of lymph node evaluation for colon cancer in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg 206(2):247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, Fielding LP (2000) American joint committee on cancer prognostic factors consensus conference: colorectal working group. Cancer 88(7):1739–1757

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ et al (2000) Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124(7):979–994

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A et al (2001) Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(8):583–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldstein NS (2002) Lymph node recoveries from 2427 pT3 colorectal resection specimens spanning 45 years: recommendations for a minimum number of recovered lymph nodes based on predictive probabilities. Am J Surg Pathol 26(2):179–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldstein NS, Sanford W, Coffey M, Layfield LJ (1996) Lymph node recovery from colorectal resection specimens removed for adenocarcinoma. Trends over time and a recommendation for a minimum number of lymph nodes to be recovered. Am J Clin Pathol 106(2):209–216

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Swanson RS, Compton CC, Stewart AK, Bland KI (2003) The prognosis of T3N0 colon cancer is dependent on the number of lymph nodes examined. Ann Surg Oncol 10(1):65–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Prandi M, Lionetto R, Bini A et al (2002) Prognostic evaluation of stage B colon cancer patients is improved by an adequate lymphadenectomy: results of a secondary analysis of a large scale adjuvant trial. Ann Surg 235(4):458–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson PM, Porter GA, Ricciardi R, Baxter NN (2006) Increasing negative lymph node count is independently associated with improved long-term survival in stage IIIB and IIIC colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(22):3570–3575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller EA, Woosley J, Martin CF, Sandler RS (2004) Hospital-to-hospital variation in lymph node detection after colorectal resection. Cancer 101(5):1065–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tekkis PP, Smith JJ, Heriot AG et al (2006) A national study on lymph node retrieval in resectional surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 49(11):1673–1683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reese JA, Hall C, Bowles K, Moesinger RC (2009) Colorectal surgical specimen lymph node harvest: improvement of lymph node yield with a pathology assistant. J Gastrointest Surg 13(8):1459–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson PM, Malatjalian D, Porter GA (2002) Adequacy of nodal harvest in colorectal cancer: a consecutive cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg 6(6):883–888, discussion 889–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scabini S, Rimini E, Romairone E et al (2010) Factors that influence 12 or more harvested lymph nodes in resective R0 colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 57(101):728–733

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stocchi L, Fazio VW, Lavery I, Hammel J (2011) Individual surgeon, pathologist, and other factors affecting lymph node harvest in stage II colon carcinoma. is a minimum of 12 examined lymph nodes sufficient? Ann Surg Oncol 18(2):405–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Valsecchi ME, Leighton J Jr, Tester W (2010) Modifiable factors that influence colon cancer lymph node sampling and examination. Clin Colorectal Cancer 9(3):162–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nathan H, Shore AD, Anders RA et al (2011) Variation in lymph node assessment after colon cancer resection: patient, surgeon, pathologist, or hospital? J Gastrointest Surg 15(3):471–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buchwald P, Olofsson F, Lorinc E, Syk I (2011) Standard protocol for assessment of colon cancer improves the quality of pathology. Colorectal Dis 13(3):e33–e36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown HG, Luckasevic TM, Medich DS et al (2004) Efficacy of manual dissection of lymph nodes in colon cancer resections. Mod Pathol 17(4):402–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Herrera-Ornelas L, Justiniano J, Castillo N et al (1987) Metastases in small lymph nodes from colon cancer. Arch Surg 122(11):1253–1256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Storli K, Lindboe CF, Kristoffersen C et al (2011) Lymph node harvest in colon cancer specimens depends on tumour factors, patients and doctors, but foremost on specimen handling. APMIS 119(2):127–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hernanz F, Garcia-Somacarrera E, Fernandez F (2009) The assessment of lymph nodes missed in mesenteric tissue after standard dissection of colorectal cancer specimens. Colorectal Dis 12(7):e57–e60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jestin P, Pahlman L, Glimelius B, Gunnarsson U (2005) Cancer staging and survival in colon cancer is dependent on the quality of the pathologists' specimen examination. Eur J Cancer 41(14):2071–2078

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Andersson Y, Frisell J, Sylvan M et al (2010) Breast cancer survival in relation to the metastatic tumor burden in axillary lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2868–2873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. El-Gazzaz G, Hull T, Hammel J, Geisler D (2010) Does a laparoscopic approach affect the number of lymph nodes harvested during curative surgery for colorectal cancer? Surg Endosc 24(1):113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jha MK, Corbett WA, Wilson RG et al (2006) Variance of surgeons versus pathologists in staging of colorectal cancer. Minerva Chir 61(5):385–391

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K et al (2010) Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol 28(2):272–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K et al (2009) Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation–technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis 11(4):354–364, discussion 364–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimers

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Colon and Rectal Surgery Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Zubin M. Bamboat, Danielle DePeralta, Abdulmetin Dursun, David L. Berger & Liliana Bordeianou

  2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Zubin M. Bamboat, Danielle DePeralta, Abdulmetin Dursun, David L. Berger & Liliana Bordeianou

Authors
  1. Zubin M. Bamboat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle DePeralta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdulmetin Dursun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David L. Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liliana Bordeianou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliana Bordeianou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bamboat, Z.M., DePeralta, D., Dursun, A. et al. Factors affecting lymph node yield from patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 26, 1163–1168 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1240-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1240-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation