Evaluation of lymph node numbers for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although evaluation of at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) is recommended as the minimum number of nodes required for accurate staging of colon cancer patients, there is disagreement on what constitutes an adequate identification of such LNs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To evaluate the minimum number of LNs for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon cancer, 490 patients were categorized into groups based on 1-6, 7-11, 12-19, and ≥ 20 LNs collected.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For patients with Stage II or III disease, examination of 12 LNs was not significantly associated with recurrence or mortality. For Stage II (HR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.91), but not for Stage III patients (HR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.54-4.64), examination of ≥20 LNs was associated with a reduced risk of recurrence within 2 years. However, examination of ≥20 LNs had a 55% (Stage II, HR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.87) and a 31% (Stage III, HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.26) decreased risk of mortality, respectively. For each six additional LNs examined from Stage III patients, there was a 19% increased probability of finding a positive LN (parameter estimate = 0.18510, p < 0.0001). For Stage II and III colon cancers, there was improved survival and a decreased risk of recurrence with an increased number of LNs examined, regardless of the cutoff-points. Examination of ≥7 or ≥12 LNs had similar outcomes, but there were significant outcome benefits at the ≥20 cutoff-point only for Stage II patients. For Stage III patients, examination of 6 additional LNs detected one additional positive LN.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Thus, the 12 LN cut-off point cannot be supported as requisite in determining adequate staging of colon cancer based on current data. However, a minimum of 6 LNs should be examined for adequate staging of Stage II and III colon cancer patients.</p

Could lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy provide oncological providence for local resectional techniques for colon cancer? A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endoscopic resectional techniques for colon cancer are undermined by their inability to determine lymph node status. This limits their application to only those lesions at the most minimal risk of lymphatic dissemination whereas their technical capacity could allow intraluminal or even transluminal address of larger lesions. Sentinel node biopsy may theoretically address this breach although the variability of its reported results for this disease is worrisome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were interrogated back to 1999 to identify all publications concerning lymphatic mapping for colon cancer with reference cross-checking for completeness. All reports were examined from the perspective of in vivo technique accuracy selectively in early stage disease (i.e. lesions potentially within the technical capacity of endoscopic resection).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-two studies detailing the experiences of 3390 patients were identified. Considerable variation in patient characteristics as well as in surgical and histological quality assurances were however evident among the studies identified. In addition, considerable contamination of the studies by inclusion of rectal cancer without subgroup separation was frequent. Indeed such is the heterogeneity of the publications to date, formal meta-analysis to pool patient cohorts in order to definitively ascertain technique accuracy in those with T1 and/or T2 cancer is not possible. Although lymphatic mapping in early stage neoplasia alone has rarely been specifically studied, those studies that included examination of false negative rates identified high T3/4 patient proportions and larger tumor size as being important confounders. Under selected circumstances however the technique seems to perform sufficiently reliably to allow it prompt consideration of its use to tailor operative extent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The specific question of whether sentinel node biopsy can augment the oncological propriety for endoscopic resective techniques (including Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery [NOTES]) cannot be definitively answered at present. Study heterogeneity may account for the variability evident in the results from different centers. Enhanced capacity (perhaps to the level necessary to consider selective avoidance of en bloc mesenteric resection) by its confinement to only early stage disease is plausible although not proven. Specific study of the technique in early stage tumors is clearly essential before proffering this approach.</p

Sentinel lymph node mapping in colon cancer: current status.

BACKGROUND: The primary role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in colon cancer is to increase the accuracy of nodal staging by identifying those lymph nodes with the greatest potential for harbouring metastatic disease. Ultrastaging techniques aim to identify the otherwise undetected metastases. Until now, no consensus exists as to the most optimal procedure in patients with colon cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search on the value of different SLN mapping techniques in patients with colon cancer was performed using the electronic search engine PubMed. Prospective studies published before 1 December 2005 were included and further articles were selected by cross-referencing. The results of different techniques using either blue dye or radiocolloid, were investigated. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 17 relevant articles. SLN mapping using blue dye was described in 15 studies. Two studies reported the results of SLN mapping using a combination of blue dye and radiocolloid. The reported results on identification rate varied between 71 and 100%. Accuracy rates were between 78 and 100%, sensitivity rates between 25 and 100% and true upstaging rates between 0 and 26%. The results were not affected by the addition of radiocolloid to blue dye. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with colon cancer remains an experimental procedure with varying results. Further evaluation may lead to a standardized technique that offers the potential for significant upstaging of stage II patients. This may have important implications as to tailor adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimens in these patients