Dataset Information

The Relationship Between Lymph Node Ratio and Survival Benefit With Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Node-positive Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We hypothesized that the ratio of positive lymph nodes to total assessed lymph nodes (LNR) is an indicator of cancer burden in esophageal adenocarcinoma and may identify patients who may most benefit from AC.

Objective

The aim of this study was to discern whether there is a threshold LNR above which AC is associated with a survival benefit in this population.

Methods

The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent upfront, complete resection of pT1-4N1-3M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. The primary outcome, overall survival, was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models employing an interaction term between LNR and AC.

Results

A total of 1733 patients were included: 811 (47%) did not receive AC whereas 922 (53%) did. The median LNR was 20% (interquartile range 9-40). In a multivariable Cox model, the interaction term between LNR and receipt of AC was significant (P = 0.01). A plot of the interaction demonstrated that AC was associated with improved survival beyond a LNR of about 10%-12%. In a sensitivity analysis, the receipt of AC was not associated with improved survival in patients with LNR <12% (hazard ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.44) but was associated with improved survival in those with LNR ≥12% (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.79).

Conclusions

In this study of patients with upfront, complete resection of node-positive esophageal adenocarcinoma, AC was associated with improved survival for LNR ≥12%. LNR may be used as an adjunct in multidisciplinary decision-making about adjuvant therapies in this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Raman V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7790855 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContemporary treatment of node-positive (N+) colon cancer consists of adjuvant chemotherapy; however, randomized data supporting this practice were derived from lesions T2 or greater. Minimal data exist regarding the use and need for adjuvant chemotherapy in T1N+ disease.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine treatment trends and the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on T1N+ colon cancers by using the National Cancer Database.DesignThis was a retrospective study. Baseline demographics, tumor, and cancer treatment characteristics were compared. Groups were matched on the propensity to receive chemotherapy. Adjusted long-term survival stratified by chemotherapy use was compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. Predictors of not receiving chemotherapy were identified by using a multivariable logistic regression model.SettingsData were collected from the National Cancer Database, which collects cancer data from over 1500 cancer centers.PatientsWe identified patients from 1998 to 2006 with T1N+ disease, excluding those with metastatic disease or previous cancer. Patients were stratified based on whether or not they received chemotherapy.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure of this study was long-term survival.ResultsThree thousand one hundred thirty-seven patients had T1N+ disease; 70.6% (n = 2216) received chemotherapy, and utilization significantly increased from 1998 to 2011 (p < 0.001). Unadjusted analysis revealed that patients treated with chemotherapy were statistically younger and healthier, and had shorter postoperative lengths of stay (all p < 0.001). Unadjusted 5-year survival was higher in patients receiving chemotherapy (87.9% vs 63.0% in patients with no chemotherapy; p < 0.001) and this persisted after propensity matching with (83.4% and 63.0% in patients with or without chemotherapy; p < 0.001). Only age (OR, 0.29; p < 0.001) predicted not receiving chemotherapy.LimitationsLimitations include potential selection bias as well as the inability to compare disease-free survival/recurrence.ConclusionsAdjuvant chemotherapy appears to significantly improve long-term survival in patients receiving chemotherapy in T1N+ disease. Thus, the use of chemotherapy in T1N+ disease is justified and provides a highly significant survival benefit.

Project description:BackgroundWe sought to assess the prognostic significance of lymph node ratio (LNR) and N stage in patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy, S-1, and XELOX and to compare the efficacy of them according to LNRs and N stages to evaluate the clinical impact of using LNRs compared with using N staging.MethodsPatients undergoing D2 gastrectomy with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III gastric cancer between Mar 2011 and Dec 2016 were analysed. Of the 477 patients enrolled, 331 received S-1 and 146 received XELOX. LNR groups were segregated as 0, 0-0.1, 0.1-0.25, and > 0.25 (LNR0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimise potential selection bias and compare DFS and OS stratified by LNRs and N stages in the two treatment groups.ResultsAfter PSM, the sample size of each group was 110 patients, and variables were well balanced. All patients had more than 15 examined lymph nodes (median 51, range 16~124). In multivariate analysis, LNR (> 0.25) and N stage (N3) showed independent prognostic value in OS and DFS, but LNR (> 0.25) showed better prognostic value. In subgroup analysis, the LNR3 group showed better 5-year DFS (20% vs 54%; HR 0.29; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (26% vs 67%; HR 0.28; p = 0.020) in the XELOX group. The N3 group showed better 5-year DFS (38% vs 66%; HR 0.40; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (47% vs 71%; HR 0.45; p = 0.019) in the XELOX group. Stage IIIC showed better 5-year DFS (22% vs 57%; HR 0.32; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (27% vs 68%; HR 0.32; p = 0.009) in the XELOX group. The LNR3 group within N3 patients showed better 5-year DFS (21% vs 55%; HR 0.31; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (27% vs 68%; HR 0.34; p = 0.018) in the XELOX group.ConclusionsLNR showed better prognostic value than N staging. LNR3, N3 and stage IIIC groups showed the superior efficacy of XELOX to that of S-1. And the LNR3 group within N3 patients showed more survival benefit from XELOX. LNR > 0.25, N3 stage and stage IIIC were the discriminant factors for selecting XELOX over S-1.Trial registrationNot applicable (retrospective study).