Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2020

Open Access 16.10.2019

Population-based analysis on predictors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colon cancer

verfasst von: Xin Xu, Chihao Zhang, Xiaochun Ni, Jugang Wu, Chunpeng Pan, Shoulian Wang, Jiwei Yu

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 9/2020

Abstract

Background

In this study, we aimed to identify independent predictive factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colon cancer.

Methods

Data of 8056 eligible patients were retrospectively collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 2004–2012. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify predictive factors for LNM. Both unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association between LNM and patient survival. Finally, we used competing risks analysis and the cumulative incidence function (CIF) to further confirm the prognostic role of LNM in cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results

The overall risk of LNM in patients with T1 colon cancer was 12.0% (N = 967). Adjusted logistic regression models revealed that mucinous carcinoma [odds ratio (OR) = 2.26, P < 0.001], moderately differentiated (OR 1.74, P < 0.001), poorly differentiated (OR 5.16, P < 0.001), and undifferentiated carcinoma (OR 3.01, P = 0.003); older age (OR 0.66, P < 0.001 for age 65–79 years, OR 0.44, P < 0.001 for age over 80 years); and carcinoma located in the ascending colon (OR 0.77, P = 0.018) and sigmoid colon (OR 1.24, P = 0.014) were independent predictive factors for LNM. Adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that positive lymph node involvement was significantly associated with CSS [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.02, P < 0.001], which was further robustly confirmed using a competing risks model and the CIF.

Conclusions

This population-based study showed that mucinous carcinoma, tumor grade, age, and primary tumor location were independent predictive factors for LNM in T1 colon cancer. The risk of LNM should be carefully evaluated in patients with T1 colon cancer, before clinical management.
Hinweise
Xin Xu and Chihao Zhang have contributed equally to this study.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Colorectal cancer is among the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in both western countries and China [1, 2]. Colorectal cancer is mainly divided into colon cancer and rectal cancer based on primary tumor location, with colon cancer accounting for approximately 70% of colorectal cancers [1, 3]. Early colon cancer refers to carcinoma with invasion limited to the submucosa [4, 5], which can be designated T1NXM0 based on the TNM classification system.
T1 colon cancer is heterogeneous in its clinical presence and prognostic outcome [4]. Generally, the long-term survival of patients with stage I colorectal cancer is excellent after radical resection [6]. The risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) has been reported to range between 8 and 15% [68] in T1 colorectal cancer. The probability of lymph node involvement is considered in the clinical management of colon cancer because lymph node status substantially affects patient prognosis [9]. On the one hand, inadequate removal of positive regional lymph nodes would increase local recurrence and cause poor prognosis. On the other hand, extensive surgical resection that is unnecessary would lead to low quality of life and postoperative morbidity.
Advanced endoscopic techniques have become established therapeutic approaches in patients with T1 colon cancer who are carefully selected and evaluated [8, 10]. As LNM occurs in approximately 10% of all T1 colorectal cancers [7, 11], unnecessary additional surgical resection might be avoided after initial endoscopic resection and careful evaluation to eliminate any possible risk factors, including LNM. For this proportion of patients, unnecessary surgery would cause anastomotic leakage and bowel dysfunction but would yield no survival benefit [12]. However, for patients with a high risk of LNM, surgical resection is required to decrease the local recurrence rate and subsequently increase survival. Therefore, to establish a proper therapeutic strategy and minimize the local recurrence rate, patients with a high risk of LNM should be identified.
To this end, we aimed to determine the predictors for LNM in T1 colon cancer using data of eligible patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database in the present study.

Materials and methods

Data source and patient selection

The National Cancer Institute-based SEER database covers approximately 28% of all cancer cases and includes 18 population-based cancer registries in the USA [13]. SEER is also one of the largest publicly accessible databases globally and is updated annually. In this study, relevant data were retrieved from the SEER database. This study was approved by the institutional ethical review board of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
A total of 8056 eligible patients were enrolled between 2004 and 2012, according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients age 18 years or over; (2) a pathological diagnosis of T1 adenocarcinoma or mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon; (3) at least 12 lymph nodes sampled; and (4) undergoing active follow-up. Patients were eliminated if they had in situ cancer, underwent preoperative radiotherapy, or experienced another primary malignancy.
Data on patient demographics (age, sex, year at diagnosis, ethnicity, and marital status) and tumor characteristics [tumor size, histology, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, tumor grade, primary tumor site, number of resected lymph nodes, and postoperative radiation] were retrieved from the SEER database and subsequently analyzed.
Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from the date of diagnosis until death for any reason, or the last follow-up. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was defined as time from the date of diagnosis until death attributed to colon cancer.

Statistical analysis

Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. An unadjusted logistic regression model, adjusted logistic regression model, and backward logistic regression model were used to identify and confirm risk factors for positive lymph node involvement. Odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. A Cox regression model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS. In addition, OS and CSS curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method, with a log-rank test to determine statistical significance. Finally, a competing risks model was established and the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was estimated. SPSS version 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and R software for Windows version R-3.4.3 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) were used for statistical analysis. A two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Baseline characteristics

The patient selection process is shown in Table 1. Of the data of 161,589 patients diagnosed with colon cancer who underwent surgical resection during 2004–2012 from the SEER database, 8056 eligible patients were finally included in the present analysis. A total of 3924 male and 4132 female patients were included. The median number of lymph nodes sampled was 17 [interquartile range (IQR): 14–22]. The overall risk of LNM in patients with T1 colon cancer was 12.0% (N = 967). The median follow-up was 68 months (ranging from 47 to 94 months). At the end of follow-up, 6650 (82.55%) patients were still alive. The cancer-specific mortality rate was 9.41% (N = 91) and 3.26% (N = 231) in patients with and without LNM, respectively. Other detailed clinicopathological information is shown in Table 2.
Table 1
Flowchart of patient selection
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00464-019-07192-0/MediaObjects/464_2019_7192_Tab1_HTML.png
Table 2
Clinicopathological characteristics of the selected patients
 
Total
N = 8056
N = 967
N0
N = 7089
P
Tumor size (cm)
   
0.015
 < 1
1442 (17.9)
169 (17.48)
1273 (17.96)
 
 1–1.9
1736 (21.55)
231 (23.89)
1505 (21.23)
 
 2–2.9
1160 (14.4)
137 (14.17)
1023 (14.43)
 
 3+
1482 (18.4)
200 (20.68)
1282 (18.08)
 
 Not stated
2236 (27.76)
230 (23.78)
2006 (28.3)
 
Histology
   
< 0.001
 Adenocarcinoma
7835 (97.26)
920 (95.14)
6915 (97.55)
 
 Mucinous carcinoma
221 (2.74)
47 (4.86)
174 (2.45)
 
CEA*
   
< 0.001
 Positive
457 (5.67)
75 (7.76)
382 (5.39)
 
 Negative
3123 (38.77)
439 (45.4)
2684 (37.86)
 
 Borderline/unknown
4476 (55.56)
453 (46.85)
4023 (56.75)
 
Grade
   
< 0.001
 Well-differentiated
1605 (19.92)
116 (12.0)
1489 (21)
 
 Moderately differentiated
5054 (62.74)
625 (64.63)
4429 (62.48)
 
 Poorly differentiated
563 (6.99)
162 (16.75)
401 (5.66)
 
 Undifferentiated
55 (0.68)
10 (1.03)
45 (0.63)
 
 Unknown
779 (9.67)
54 (5.58)
725 (10.23)
 
Year
   
0.112
 2004–2006
1680 (20.85)
216 (22.34)
1464 (20.65)
 
 2007–2009
2998 (37.21)
331 (34.23)
2667 (37.62)
 
 2010–2012
3378 (41.93)
420 (43.43)
2958 (41.73)
 
Age (years)
   
< 0.001
 Up to 49
731 (9.07)
114 (11.79)
617 (8.7)
 
 50–64
3101 (38.49)
455 (47.05)
2646 (37.33)
 
 65–79
3162 (39.25)
324 (33.51)
2838 (40.03)
 
 80+
1062 (13.18)
74 (7.65)
988 (13.94)
 
Gender
   
0.257
 Male
3924 (48.71)
454 (46.95)
3470 (48.95)
 
 Female
4132 (51.29)
513 (53.05)
3619 (51.05)
 
Race
   
0.321
 Black
988 (12.26)
117 (12.1)
871 (12.29)
 
 White
6371 (79.08)
753 (77.87)
5618 (79.25)
 
 Others
647 (8.03)
88 (9.1)
559 (7.89)
 
 Unknown
50 (0.62)
9 (0.93)
41 (0.58)
 
Marital status
   
0.007
 Married
4865 (60.39)
626 (64.74)
4239 (59.8)
 
 Single/widowed
2042 (25.35)
228 (23.58)
1814 (25.59)
 
 Other/unknown
1149 (14.26)
113 (11.69)
1036 (14.61)
 
Primary site
   
< 0.001
 Cecum
1781 (22.11)
204 (21.1)
1577 (22.25)
 
 Ascending colon
1989 (24.69)
181 (18.72)
1808 (25.5)
 
 Hepatic flexure
399 (4.95)
42 (4.34)
357 (5.04)
 
 Transverse colon
615 (7.63)
61 (6.31)
554 (7.81)
 
 Splenic flexure
157 (1.95)
13 (1.34)
144 (2.03)
 
 Descending colon
410 (5.09)
49 (5.07)
361 (5.09)
 
 Sigmoid colon
2705 (33.58)
417 (43.12)
2288 (32.28)
 
Total lymph nodes
Median (IQR*)
17 (14–22)
17 (14–22)
17 (14–22)
0.375
Radiation
   
< 0.001
 None
8043 (99.84)
959 (99.17)
7084 (99.93)
 
 Postoperative
13 (0.16)
8 (0.83)
5 (0.07)
 
Cause of death
   
< 0.001
 Alive
6650 (82.55)
786 (81.28)
5864 (82.72)
 
 Dead from cancer
322 (4.00)
91 (9.41)
231 (3.26)
 
 Dead not from cancer
1084 (13.46)
90 (9.31)
994 (14.02)
 
Follow-up time (months)
68 (47–94)
66 (45–94)
66 (45–94)
0.176
*CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, IQR interquartile range

Risk factors of lymph node metastasis

Unadjusted and adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors for LNM. As a result, mucinous carcinoma, tumor grade, age, and primary tumor location were robustly confirmed as significant predictive factors for LNM (Table 3). Patients with mucinous carcinoma had significantly higher risks of LNM. Compared with patients who had well-differentiated colon cancer, those with moderately differentiated, poorly differentiated, and even undifferentiated carcinoma were at higher risk of LNM. In terms of age, a decreasing LNM risk was detected in older patients (age 65–79 years and age over 80 years). Of note, carcinoma located in the ascending colon and sigmoid colon was significantly associated with lower LNM risk, as compared with carcinoma located in the cecum.
Table 3
Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colon cancer
 
Unadjusted logistic regression
Adjusted logistic regression
Adjusted selection from adjusted logistic regression
OR* (95% CI*)
P
OR (95% CI)
P
OR (95% CI)
P
Tumor size (cm)
      
 < 1
Reference
     
 1–1.9
1.16 (0.94–1.43)
0.180
    
 2–2.9
1.01 (0.79–1.28)
0.943
    
 3+
1.18 (0.94–1.46)
0.149
    
 Not stated
0.86 (0.70–1.07)
0.173
    
Histology
      
 Adenocarcinoma
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Mucinous carcinoma
2.03 (1.45–2.80)
< 0.001
2.26 (1.61–3.21)
< 0.001
2.30 (1.61–3.21)
< 0.001
CEA*
      
 Positive
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Negative
0.83 (0.64–1.10)
0.181
0.76 (0.58–0.99)
0.047
0.76 (0.58–1.00)
0.047
 Borderline/unknown
0.57 (0.44–0.75)
< 0.001
0.56 (0.43–0.74)
< 0.001
0.56 (0.43–0.74)
< 0.001
Grade
      
 Well-differentiated
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Moderately differentiated
1.81 (1.48–2.24)
< 0.001
1.74 (1.42–2.15)
< 0.001
1.74 (1.42–2.15)
< 0.001
 Poorly differentiated
5.19 (3.99–6.75)
< 0.001
5.16 (3.96–6.75)
< 0.001
5.16 (3.96–6.75)
< 0.001
 Undifferentiated
2.85 (1.33–5.58)
0.004
3.01 (1.39–5.97)
0.003
3.01 (1.39–5.97)
0.003
 Unknown
0.96 (0.68–1.33)
0.793
0.56 (0.64–1.26)
0.571
0.91 (0.64–1.26)
0.571
Year
      
 2004–2006
Reference
     
 2007–2009
0.84 (0.70–1.01)
0.064
    
 2010–2012
0.96 (0.81–1.15)
0.669
    
Age (years)
      
 Up to 49
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 50–64
0.93 (0.75–1.17)
0.528
0.99 (0.79–1.26)
0.970
0.99 (0.79–1.26)
0.970
 65–79
0.62 (0.49–0.78)
< 0.001
0.66 (0.52–0.84)
< 0.001
0.66 (0.52–0.84)
< 0.001
 80+
0.41 (0.30–0.55)
< 0.001
0.44 (0.32–0.60)
< 0.001
0.44 (0.32–0.60)
< 0.001
Gender
      
 Male
Reference
     
 Female
1.08 (0.95–1.24)
0.243
    
Race
      
 Black
Reference
     
 White
0.99 (0.81–1.23)
0.983
    
 Others
1.17 (0.87–1.57)
0.294
    
Marital status
      
 Married
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Single/widowed
0.85 (0.72–0.99)
0.050
0.98 (0.82–1.15)
0.781
0.98 (0.82–1.15)
0.781
 Other/unknown
0.74 (0.60–0.91)
0.005
0.73 (0.59–0.91)
0.005
0.73 (0.59–0.91)
0.005
Primary site
      
 Cecum
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Ascending colon
0.77 (0.63–0.96)
0.017
0.77 (0.62–0.96)
0.018
0.77 (0.62–0.96)
0.018
 Hepatic flexure
0.91 (0.63–1.28)
0.597
0.91 (0.63–1.29)
0.592
0.91 (0.63–1.29)
0.592
 Transverse colon
0.85 (0.62–1.14)
0.296
0.81 (0.59–1.10)
0.184
0.81 (0.59–1.10)
0.184
 Splenic flexure
0.70 (0.37–1.21)
0.229
0.63 (0.33–1.11)
0.134
0.63 (0.33–1.11)
0.134
 Descending colon
1.05 (0.75–1.45)
0.777
0.92 (0.64–1.28)
0.612
0.92 (0.64–1.28)
0.612
 Sigmoid colon
1.41 (1.18–1.69)
< 0.001
1.26 (1.05–1.53)
0.014
1.26 (1.05–1.53)
0.014
*OR odd ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen

Lymph node metastasis and patient survival

We further evaluated the association between LNM and patient survival. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariate Cox regression models persistently showed that tumor size, CEA level, age, and marital status were significant prognostic factors for OS in patients with T1 colon cancer (Table 4). Similarly, lymph node status, tumor size, CEA level, tumor grade, year at diagnosis, age, and marital status had significant prognostic value for CSS in patients with T1 colon carcinoma (Table 5). Interestingly, positive lymph node involvement was significantly associated with CSS [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.02 (2.34–3.89), P < 0.001 in adjusted analysis] but not with OS [HR = 1.11 (0.95–1.29), P = 0.21 in unadjusted analysis]. To further investigate the prognostic significance of LNM, patients were categorized into two groups according to their lymph node status. Kaplan–Meier curves showed no statistical significance of OS between the two groups (P = 0.21) (Fig. 1A), whereas the CSS rate was significantly lower in the lymph node positive group than that in the lymph node negative group (P < 0.0001) (Fig. 1B).
Table 4
Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival in T1 colon cancer
 
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Variable selection
HR* (95% CI*)
P
HR (95% CI)
P
HR (95% CI)
P
N stage
      
 N0
Reference
     
 N1/N2
1.11 (0.95–1.29)
0.21
    
Tumor size (cm)
      
  < 1
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 1–1.9
1.16 (0.98–1.39)
0.091
1.08 (0.91–1.29)
0.405
1.09 (0.91–1.30)
0.348
 2–2.9
1.41 (1.17–1.69)
< 0.001
1.21 (1.01–1.46)
0.043
1.23 (1.02–1.48)
0.029
 3+
1.45 (1.22–1.73)
< 0.001
1.29 (1.08–1.53)
0.005
1.30 (1.09–1.54)
0.004
 Not stated
0.86 (0.72–1.02)
0.086
0.93 (0.78–1.11)
0.433
0.93 (0.78–1.11)
0.448
Histology
      
 Adenocarcinoma
Reference
 
Reference
   
 Mucinous carcinoma
1.47 (1.14–1.91)
0.003
1.12 (0.86–1.46)
0.391
  
CEA*
      
 Positive
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Negative
0.40 (0.33–0.48)
< 0.001
0.50 (0.41–0.60)
< 0.001
0.49 (0.41–0.60)
< 0.001
 Borderline/unknown
0.51 (0.43–0.61)
< 0.001
0.61 (0.51–0.73)
< 0.001
0.61 (0.51–0.72)
< 0.001
Grade
      
 Well-differentiated
Reference
 
Reference
   
 Moderately differentiated
1.04 (0.91–1.19)
0.600
1.05 (0.91–1.20)
0.502
  
 Poorly differentiated
1.10 (0.88–1.37)
0.422
1.12 (0.89–1.40)
0.340
  
 Undifferentiated
2.31 (1.43–3.72)
< 0.001
2.02 (1.25–3.26)
0.004
  
 Unknown
0.90 (0.73–1.11)
0.320
1.05 (0.85–1.30)
0.666
  
Year
      
 2004–2006
Reference
     
 2007–2009
1.02 (0.90–1.16)
0.745
    
 2010–2012
0.86 (0.74–1.01)
0.063
    
Age (years)
      
 Up to 49
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 50–64
1.84 (1.25–2.71)
0.002
1.92 (1.30–2.82)
0.001
1.91 (1.30–2.82)
0.001
 65–79
5.39 (3.72–7.82)
< 0.001
5.33 (3.67–7.76)
< 0.001
5.37 (3.70–7.80)
< 0.001
 80+
17.44 (12.00–25.36)
< 0.001
15.68 (10.72–22.91)
< 0.001
15.82 (10.86–23.04)
< 0.001
Gender
      
 Male
Reference
     
 Female
0.99 (0.89–1.10)
0.827
    
Race
      
 Black
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 White
1.00 (0.85–1.17)
0.954
0.78 (0.67–0.92)
0.004
0.78 (0.66–0.92)
0.003
 Others
0.56 (0.42–0.74)
< 0.001
0.50 (0.38–0.66)
< 0.001
0.50 (0.38–0.66)
< 0.001
Marital status
      
 Married
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Single/widowed
2.10 (1.88–2.35)
< 0.001
1.38 (1.23–1.55)
< 0.001
1.38 (1.23–1.55)
< 0.001
 Other/unknown
1.05 (0.89–1.25)
0.562
1.02 (0.86–1.21)
0.823
1.02 (0.86–1.21)
0.839
Primary site
      
 Cecum
Reference
 
Reference
   
 Ascending colon
0.99 (0.86–1.13)
0.866
1.07 (0.93–1.23)
0.369
  
 Hepatic flexure
0.87 (0.68–1.11)
0.264
0.95 (0.73–1.21)
0.658
  
 Transverse colon
0.73 (0.58–0.91)
0.006
0.91 (0.73–1.14)
0.405
  
 Splenic flexure
0.72 (0.48–1.07)
0.106
1.05 (0.70–1.58)
0.803
  
 Descending colon
0.64 (0.49–0.85)
0.002
0.96 (0.73–1.28)
0.802
  
 Sigmoid colon
0.58 (0.50–0.67)
< 0.001
1.01 (0.87–1.17)
0.883
  
*HR hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen
Table 5
Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival in T1 colon cancer
 
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Variable selection
HR* (95% CI*)
P
HR (95% CI)
P
HR (95% CI)
P
N stage
      
 N0
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 N1/N2
2.95 (2.31–3.76)
< 0.001
3.02 (2.34–3.89)
< 0.001
3.00 (2.33–3.87)
< 0.001
Tumor size (cm)
      
 < 1
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 1–1.9
1.22 (0.84–1.79)
0.296
1.09 (0.74–1.60)
0.661
1.09 (0.74–1.60)
0.649
 2–2.9
1.44 (0.97–2.15)
0.073
1.21 (0.81–1.80)
0.364
1.21 (0.81–1.80)
0.341
 3+
1.90 (1.33–2.73)
< 0.001
1.57 (1.09–2.26)
0.015
1.57 (1.09–2.26)
0.014
 Not stated
0.88 (0.60–1.29)
0.504
0.93 (0.63–1.37)
0.702
0.93 (0.63–1.37)
0.709
Histology
      
 Adenocarcinoma
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Mucinous carcinoma
2.11 (1.33–3.36)
0.002
1.45 (0.90–2.33)
0.124
1.45 (0.90–2.33)
0.114
CEA*
      
 Positive
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Negative
0.33 (0.23–0.47)
< 0.001
0.40 (0.28–0.58)
< 0.001
0.40 (0.28–0.58)
< 0.001
 Borderline/unknown
0.35 (0.25–0.50)
< 0.001
0.45 (0.32–0.63)
< 0.001
0.45 (0.32–0.64)
< 0.001
Grade
      
 Well-differentiated
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Moderately differentiated
1.06 (0.79–1.42)
0.697
1.03 (0.77–1.38)
0.834
1.02 (0.76–1.37)
0.874
 Poorly differentiated
1.92 (1.29–2.87)
0.001
1.49 (0.99–2.24)
0.057
1.48 (0.98–2.23)
0.060
 Undifferentiated
3.43 (1.48–7.93)
0.004
3.03 (1.30–7.05)
0.010
2.99 (1.29–6.96)
0.011
 Unknown
0.77 (0.48–1.24)
0.285
0.88 (0.54–1.44)
0.604
0.88 (0.54–1.43)
0.599
Year
      
 2004–2006
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 2007–2009
0.86 (0.66–1.12)
0.274
0.91 (0.69–1.19)
0.474
0.91 (0.70–1.19)
0.488
 2010–2012
0.63 (0.46–0.87)
0.004
0.67 (0.49–0.92)
0.014
0.68 (0.50–0.93)
0.016
Age (years)
      
 Up to 49
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 50–64
0.96 (0.59–1.54)
0.855
1.07 (0.66–1.74)
0.778
1.07 (0.66–1.74)
0.774
 65–79
1.58 (0.99–2.50)
0.052
1.63 (1.02–2.60)
0.040
1.65 (1.04–2.62)
0.033
 80+
3.53 (2.19–5.70)
< 0.001
3.33 (2.03–5.45)
< 0.001
3.37 (2.08–5.47)
< 0.001
Gender
      
 Male
Reference
     
 Female
0.96 (0.77–1.19)
0.694
    
Race
      
 Black
Reference
     
 White
1.00 (0.85–1.17)
0.954
    
 Others
0.56 (0.42–0.74)
< 0.001
    
Marital status
      
 Married
Reference
 
Reference
 
Reference
 
 Single/widowed
2.00 (1.58–2.53)
< 0.001
1.62 (1.27–2.06)
< 0.001
1.62 (1.27–2.06)
< 0.001
 Other/unknown
1.02 (0.72–1.46)
0.905
1.01 (0.70–1.44)
0.971
1.01 (0.70–1.44)
0.967
Primary site
      
 Cecum
Reference
 
Reference
   
 Ascending colon
1.02 (0.76–1.37)
0.897
1.19 (0.88–1.60)
0.263
  
 Hepatic flexure
0.82 (0.48–1.41)
0.479
0.91 (0.53–1.56)
0.725
  
 Transverse colon
0.77 (0.48–1.24)
0.284
1.01 (0.63–1.62)
0.982
  
 Splenic flexure
0.13 (0.02–0.96)
0.045
0.20 (0.03–1.42)
0.107
  
 Descending colon
0.73 (0.41–1.29)
0.280
1.03 (0.58–1.83)
0.916
  
 Sigmoid colon
0.73 (0.54–0.98)
0.038
1.04 (0.76–1.42)
0.810
  
*HR hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen

Competing risk analysis

The prognostic outcomes of cancer patients are influenced by both oncological factors and non-oncological factors. Therefore, cancer patients might die from other causes before cancer-specific death occurs [14].
For accurate determination of the prognostic role of LNM in T1 colon cancer, a competing risks model was used, which directly links the effects of risk factors with cause-specific cumulative incidence of death [15]. As a result, LNM [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) = 2.96, P < 0.001], tumor size > 3.0 cm (SHR = 1.50, P = 0.026), negative CEA level (SHR = 0.45, P < 0.001), poorly differentiated (SHR = 1.60, P < 0.031) or undifferentiated (SHR = 2.91, P = 0.022) carcinoma, diagnosis during 2010–2012 (SHR = 0.60, P = 0.001), older age (SHR = 1.61, P = 0.048 for age 65–79 years; SHR = 3.01, P < 0.001 for age over 80 years), white ethnicity (SHR = 0.57, P < 0.001), and single/widowed marital status were all significant prognostic factors for T1 colon cancer (Table 6). In addition, the CIF was used to evaluate the probability of cancer-specific mortality and death from other causes [16]. As shown in Fig. 2, the cancer-specific death rate was significantly higher in patients with LNM (shown as a red curve) than in patients without LNM (shown as a black curve).
Table 6
Competing risks analysis for cancer-specific death
 
SHR* (95% CI*)
P
N stage
  
 N0
Reference
 
 N1/N2
2.96 (2.30–3.82)
< 0.001
Tumor size (cm)
  
  < 1
Reference
 
 1–1.9
1.09 (0.75–1.59)
0.670
 2–2.9
1.17 (0.78–1.74)
0.461
 3+
1.50 (1.03–2.19)
0.026
 Not stated
0.93 (0.63–1.37)
0.720
Histology
  
 Adenocarcinoma
Reference
 
 Mucinous carcinoma
1.46 (0.91–2.36)
0.130
CEA*
  
 Positive
Reference
 
 Negative
0.45 (0.31–0.64)
< 0.001
 Borderline/unknown
0.48 (0.34–0.68)
< 0.001
Grade
  
 Well-differentiated
Reference
 
 Moderately differentiated
1.08 (0.80–1.45)
0.730
 Poorly differentiated
1.60 (1.06–2.42)
0.031
 Undifferentiated
2.91 (1.19–7.15)
0.022
 Unknown
0.90 (0.55–1.49)
0.601
Year
  
 2004–2006
Reference
 
 2007–2009
0.84 (0.65–1.10)
0.180
 2010–2012
0.60 (0.44–0.82)
0.001
Age (years)
  
 Up to 49
Reference
 
 50–64
1.06 (0.65–1.72)
0.841
 65–79
1.61 (1.00–2.58)
0.048
 80+
3.01 (1.82–4.98)
<0.001
Race
  
 Black
Reference
 
 White
0.57 (0.43–0.76)
< 0.001
 Others
0.48 (0.28–0.81)
0.007
Marital status
  
 Married
Reference
 
 Single/widowed
1.45 (1.13–1.87)
0.003
 Other/unknown
0.96 (0.67–1.38)
0.860
Primary site
  
 Cecum
Reference
 
 Ascending colon
1.21 (0.89–1.65)
0.230
 Hepatic flexure
0.96 (0.56–1.65)
0.881
 Transverse colon
1.05 (0.66–1.69)
0.832
 Splenic flexure
0.20 (0.03–1.39)
0.102
 Descending colon
1.09 (0.61–1.92)
0.781
 Sigmoid colon
1.12 (0.81–1.55)
0.490
*SHR subdistribution hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen

Discussion

With great advances in endoscopic techniques, endoscopic resection is advantageous for low-risk submucosal colon cancer, which dramatically decreases postoperative morbidities, increases quality of life, and gives rise to relatively good long-term clinical outcomes comparable to those of radical surgical resection. However, the indications of endoscopic resection in T1 colon cancer should be cautiously managed. In a retrospective study including 428 patients with T1 colorectal cancer [17], the authors indicated that the conventional indications for endoscopic treatment should not be expanded, mainly owing to the risk of LNM. Therefore, accurate identification of the predictors for LNM risk is crucial to distinguishing patients with low risk of LNM who can thus be treated using endoscopic resection, with oncological outcomes comparable to those of radical resection.
In this population-based study, we investigated the predictors for LNM in T1 colon cancer. Mucinous carcinoma, tumor grade, age, and primary tumor location were significant predictors for LNM. Mucinous carcinoma is a relatively rare pathological type of colorectal cancer, accounting for approximately 10–15% of all colorectal cancer cases [18]. As a distinct subtype, mucinous carcinoma has been reported to be associated with higher risks of lymph node involvement in stage I and II colorectal cancer [19, 20]. Our population-based analysis consistently revealed that patients with mucinous carcinoma of the colon had a higher risk of LNM. Not surprisingly, tumor grade was significantly predictive for lymph node involvement. Of note, poorly differentiated carcinoma increased LNM risk by more than 5 times, in comparison with well-differentiated carcinoma, in all three logistic regression models. Consistent with previous findings in T1 rectal cancer [21], in the present study, we identified older age as a significant negative predictor for LNM. Compared with patients age up to 49 years, the risk of LNM in patients age 65–79 years and more than 80 years dropped to approximately 0.65 and 0.44, respectively (both P < 0.001). It has been reported that lymph node yield declines with age in patients with colorectal cancer, with mean lymph node yield reduced by 1 for every 7-year increase in age overall [22].
Primary tumor location has long been reported to have an impact on the risk of LNM in colorectal cancer [4, 23]. The LNM risk in T1 rectal carcinoma has been revealed to be as high as 15% [4, 5, 24], dropping to 8% in the left colon and 3% in the right colon [4]. Here, we report similar observations, which suggests that carcinoma of the ascending colon is a significant negative predictor for the risk of LNM, whereas sigmoid colon cancer significantly increases the LNM risk. The differing LNM risks according to different primary tumor locations might be owing to intrinsic genetic differences [4, 25]. Unlike other studies concerning rectal cancer [21], we found that tumor size was not a predictive factor for the risk of LNM in T1 colon cancer. Consistent with our findings, Okabe et al. also demonstrated an insignificant association between tumor size and LNM risk in T1 adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum [4]. Therefore, it remains controversial whether primary tumor size is a predictive factor for the risk of LNM in T1 colorectal cancer, a question that deserves further investigation.
During the patient selection process, patients without an adequate number of resected lymph nodes were excluded. The cutoff value for the number of sampled lymph nodes was set to 12, according to the general consensus that at least 12 lymph nodes are required for accurate pathological judgement [26]. In this population-based analysis, LNM was detected in 12.0% (967 out of 8056) of patients with T1 colon cancer, which was slightly higher than the proportion in other studies [4, 27]. It is feasible that the lymph node positive rate increases with an increased number of sampled lymph nodes. In this study, only patients with more than 12 resected lymph nodes were enrolled, which might give rise to a slightly higher LNM rate in our study.
In survival analysis, LNM was a significant prognostic factor for CSS but not for OS. Patients with T1 colon cancer generally have good prognosis. In this study, the cancer-specific death rate and noncancer-specific death rate were 3.26% and 14.02%, respectively, for patients without LNM (Table 2). However, these rates were comparable to those in patients with LNM (9.41% for cancer-specific death and 9.31% for noncancer-specific death). The above observations robustly indicate the importance of lymph node status in determining oncological outcome in T1 colon cancer.
Owing to relatively long survival in patients with T1 colon cancer, long-term patient survival is influenced by other noncancer risks. That is to say, a considerable proportion of patients might die from causes other than cancer-related causes [15, 28, 29]. Therefore, to accurately illustrate the prognostic role of lymph node status in T1 colon cancer, we constructed a competing risks model and estimated the CIF. LNM was revealed as a definite risk factor for prognosis in patients with T1 colon cancer.
In the present population-based analysis, our conclusions are based on real-world outcomes. With a median follow-up of 68 months among 8056 eligible participants, we report these convincing findings with a high degree of statistical power. Nevertheless, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The limited availability of data from the SEER database is the main drawback. Factors including submucosal invasion depth, tumor budding, and lymphovascular invasion might also affect the likelihood of LNM, which were not assessed in our study. In terms of primary tumor location, ascending colon and sigmoid colon carcinomas are significant predictors for lymph node involvement; however, we failed to reveal any association of the hepatic flexure, transverse colon, splenic flexure, and descending colon with the risk of LNM. The relatively small sample of these tumor locations might be the cause.
In conclusion, the overall LNM rate is approximately 12.0% for T1 colon cancer. Mucinous carcinoma, tumor grade, age, and primary tumor location are significant predictors for LNM in patients with T1 colon cancer. Moreover, positive lymph node involvement is a significant prognostic factor for CSS. Thus, careful preoperative assessment of lymph node status is essential in clinical decision making, to achieve better long-term outcomes.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the financial support for this study from the Grant of Clinical Research Promotion Program of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medical, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (JYLJ201822).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Xin Xu, Chihao Zhang, Xiaochun Ni, Jugang Wu, Chunpeng Pan, Shoulian Wang, and Jiwei Yu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Literatur
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Nascimbeni R, Burgart LJ, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR (2002) Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 45(2):200–206CrossRefPubMed Nascimbeni R, Burgart LJ, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR (2002) Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 45(2):200–206CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Fang WL, Chang SC, Lin JK, Wang HS, Yang SH, Jiang JK, Chen WC, Lin TC (2005) Metastatic potential in T1 and T2 colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 52(66):1688–1691PubMed Fang WL, Chang SC, Lin JK, Wang HS, Yang SH, Jiang JK, Chen WC, Lin TC (2005) Metastatic potential in T1 and T2 colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 52(66):1688–1691PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong SL (2009) Lymph node counts and survival rates after resection for colon and rectal cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res 3(2 Suppl):S33–S35PubMedPubMedCentral Wong SL (2009) Lymph node counts and survival rates after resection for colon and rectal cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res 3(2 Suppl):S33–S35PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Overwater A, Kessels K, Elias SG, Backes Y, Spanier BWM, Seerden TCJ, Pullens HJM, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, van den Blink A, Offerhaus GJA, van Bergeijk J, Kerkhof M, Geesing JMJ, Groen JN, van Lelyveld N, Ter Borg F, Wolfhagen F, Siersema PD, Lacle MM, Moons LMG (2018) Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes. Gut 67(2):284–290. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310961 CrossRefPubMed Overwater A, Kessels K, Elias SG, Backes Y, Spanier BWM, Seerden TCJ, Pullens HJM, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, van den Blink A, Offerhaus GJA, van Bergeijk J, Kerkhof M, Geesing JMJ, Groen JN, van Lelyveld N, Ter Borg F, Wolfhagen F, Siersema PD, Lacle MM, Moons LMG (2018) Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes. Gut 67(2):284–290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​gutjnl-2015-310961 CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Morita T, Kotake K, Teramoto T, Kameoka S, Saito Y, Takahashi K, Hase K, Oya M, Maeda K, Hirai T, Kameyama M, Shirouzu K, Sugihara K (2011) Characteristics of recurrence after curative resection for T1 colorectal cancer: Japanese multicenter study. J Gastroenterol 46(2):203–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-010-0341-2 CrossRefPubMed Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Morita T, Kotake K, Teramoto T, Kameoka S, Saito Y, Takahashi K, Hase K, Oya M, Maeda K, Hirai T, Kameyama M, Shirouzu K, Sugihara K (2011) Characteristics of recurrence after curative resection for T1 colorectal cancer: Japanese multicenter study. J Gastroenterol 46(2):203–211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00535-010-0341-2 CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, Oprian CA, Vernava AM, Wade TP, Phelan MA, Henderson WG, Daley J, Khuri SF (2000) Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):83–91CrossRefPubMed Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, Oprian CA, Vernava AM, Wade TP, Phelan MA, Henderson WG, Daley J, Khuri SF (2000) Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):83–91CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat de Glas NA, Kiderlen M, Vandenbroucke JP, de Craen AJ, Portielje JE, van de Velde CJ, Liefers GJ, Bastiaannet E, Le Cessie S (2016) Performing survival analyses in the presence of competing risks: a clinical example in older breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv366 CrossRefPubMed de Glas NA, Kiderlen M, Vandenbroucke JP, de Craen AJ, Portielje JE, van de Velde CJ, Liefers GJ, Bastiaannet E, Le Cessie S (2016) Performing survival analyses in the presence of competing risks: a clinical example in older breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jnci/​djv366 CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmadi O, Stringer MD, Black MA, McCall JL (2014) Influence of age and site of disease on lymph node yield in colorectal cancer. N Z Med J 127(1395):31–40PubMed Ahmadi O, Stringer MD, Black MA, McCall JL (2014) Influence of age and site of disease on lymph node yield in colorectal cancer. N Z Med J 127(1395):31–40PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Okuyama T, Oya M, Ishikawa H (2002) Budding as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in pT1 or pT2 well-differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 45(5):628–634CrossRefPubMed Okuyama T, Oya M, Ishikawa H (2002) Budding as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in pT1 or pT2 well-differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 45(5):628–634CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Delattre O, Olschwang S, Law DJ, Melot T, Remvikos Y, Salmon RJ, Sastre X, Validire P, Feinberg AP, Thomas G (1989) Multiple genetic alterations in distal and proximal colorectal cancer. Lancet (London, England) 2(8659):353–356CrossRef Delattre O, Olschwang S, Law DJ, Melot T, Remvikos Y, Salmon RJ, Sastre X, Validire P, Feinberg AP, Thomas G (1989) Multiple genetic alterations in distal and proximal colorectal cancer. Lancet (London, England) 2(8659):353–356CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Kitajima K, Fujimori T, Fujii S, Takeda J, Ohkura Y, Kawamata H, Kumamoto T, Ishiguro S, Kato Y, Shimoda T, Iwashita A, Ajioka Y, Watanabe H, Watanabe T, Muto T, Nagasako K (2004) Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal invasion in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: a Japanese collaborative study. J Gastroenterol 39(6):534–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-004-1339-4 CrossRefPubMed Kitajima K, Fujimori T, Fujii S, Takeda J, Ohkura Y, Kawamata H, Kumamoto T, Ishiguro S, Kato Y, Shimoda T, Iwashita A, Ajioka Y, Watanabe H, Watanabe T, Muto T, Nagasako K (2004) Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal invasion in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: a Japanese collaborative study. J Gastroenterol 39(6):534–543. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00535-004-1339-4 CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Population-based analysis on predictors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colon cancer
verfasst von
Xin Xu
Chihao Zhang
Xiaochun Ni
Jugang Wu
Chunpeng Pan
Shoulian Wang
Jiwei Yu
Publikationsdatum
16.10.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07192-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.