• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

胰腺周围淋巴结的直接侵犯是否会影响胰腺导管腺癌患者的生存?一项回顾性双中心研究。

Does direct invasion of peripancreatic lymph nodes impact survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A retrospective dual-center study.

作者信息

Hashimoto Daisuke, Satoi Sohei, Ishida Mitsuaki, Nakagawa Kenji, Kotsuka Masaya, Takagi Tadataka, Ryota Hironori, Terai Taichi, Sakaguchi Tatsuma, Nagai Minako, Yamaki So, Akahori Takahiro, Yamamoto Tomohisa, Sekimoto Mitsugu, Sho Masayuki

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shin-machi, Hirakata-city, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.

Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shin-machi, Hirakata-city, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.

出版信息

Pancreatology. 2021 Aug;21(5):884-891. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.03.008. Epub 2021 Mar 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.pan.2021.03.008
PMID:33773918
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can directly invade the peripancreatic lymph nodes; however, the significance of direct lymph node invasion is controversial, and it is currently classified as lymph node metastasis. This study aimed to identify the impact of direct invasion of peripancreatic lymph nodes on survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 411 patients with resectable/borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection at two high-volume centers from 2006 to 2016 were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty (14.6%) patients had direct invasion of the peripancreatic lymph nodes without isolated lymph node metastasis (N-direct group), 189 (46.0%) had isolated lymph node metastasis (N-met group), and 162 (39.4%) had neither direct invasion nor isolated metastasis (N0 group). There was no significant difference in median overall survival between the N-direct group (35.0 months) and the N0 group (45.6 month) (p = 0.409), but survival was significantly longer in the N-direct compared with the N-met group (25.0 months) (p = 0.003). Similarly, median disease-free survival was similar in the N-direct (21.0 months) and N0 groups (22.7 months) (p = 0.151), but was significantly longer in the N-direct compared with the N-met group (14.0 months) (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified resectability, adjuvant chemotherapy, and isolated lymph node metastasis as independent predictors of overall survival. However, direct lymph node invasion was not a predictor of survival.

CONCLUSION

Direct invasion of the peripancreatic lymph nodes had no effect on survival in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and should therefore not be classified as lymph node metastasis.

摘要

背景

胰腺导管腺癌可直接侵犯胰腺周围淋巴结;然而,直接淋巴结侵犯的意义存在争议,目前被归类为淋巴结转移。本研究旨在确定胰腺周围淋巴结直接侵犯对胰腺导管腺癌患者生存的影响。

方法

回顾性评估了2006年至2016年期间在两个大型中心接受胰腺切除术的411例可切除/临界可切除胰腺导管腺癌患者。

结果

60例(14.6%)患者有胰腺周围淋巴结直接侵犯但无孤立性淋巴结转移(N-直接侵犯组),189例(46.0%)有孤立性淋巴结转移(N-转移组),162例(39.4%)既无直接侵犯也无孤立性转移(N0组)。N-直接侵犯组(35.0个月)和N0组(45.6个月)的中位总生存期无显著差异(p = 0.409),但N-直接侵犯组的生存期明显长于N-转移组(25.0个月)(p = 0.003)。同样,N-直接侵犯组(21.0个月)和N0组(22.7个月)的中位无病生存期相似(p = 0.151),但N-直接侵犯组的无病生存期明显长于N-转移组(14.0个月)(p < 0.001)。多因素分析确定可切除性、辅助化疗和孤立性淋巴结转移是总生存期的独立预测因素。然而,直接淋巴结侵犯不是生存的预测因素。

结论

胰腺周围淋巴结直接侵犯对接受胰腺导管腺癌胰腺切除术的患者生存无影响,因此不应归类为淋巴结转移。

相似文献

1
Does direct invasion of peripancreatic lymph nodes impact survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A retrospective dual-center study.胰腺周围淋巴结的直接侵犯是否会影响胰腺导管腺癌患者的生存?一项回顾性双中心研究。
Pancreatology. 2021 Aug;21(5):884-891. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.03.008. Epub 2021 Mar 19.
2
Pattern of lymph node involvement and prognosis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: direct lymph node invasion has similar survival to node-negative disease.胰腺腺癌的淋巴结转移模式和预后:直接淋巴结侵犯的生存情况与淋巴结阴性疾病相似。
Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Feb;35(2):228-34. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318206c37a.
3
Does the mechanism of lymph node invasion affect survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma?淋巴结侵犯机制是否影响胰腺导管腺癌患者的生存?
J Gastrointest Surg. 2010 Feb;14(2):261-7. doi: 10.1007/s11605-009-1096-z. Epub 2009 Nov 25.
4
Prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.腹主动脉旁淋巴结转移对胰腺导管腺癌预后的影响。
World J Surg. 2010 Aug;34(8):1900-7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0577-2.
5
Metastatic lymph node ratio as an important prognostic factor in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.淋巴结转移率是胰腺导管腺癌的一个重要预后因素。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012 Apr;38(4):333-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.12.020. Epub 2012 Feb 7.
6
Peritumoral lymph nodes in pancreatic cancer revisited; is it truly equivalent to lymph node metastasis?胰腺癌的瘤周淋巴结:真的等同于淋巴结转移吗?
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2021 Oct;28(10):893-901. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.940. Epub 2021 Apr 12.
7
Para-aortic lymph nodes and ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: Distant neighbors?腹主动脉旁淋巴结与胰腺导管腺癌:远房邻居?
Surgery. 2021 Dec;170(6):1807-1814. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.06.045. Epub 2021 Aug 13.
8
Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.胰腺癌胰十二指肠切除术后淋巴结比率的预后相关性。
Surgery. 2007 May;141(5):610-8. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.12.013. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
9
Neoadjuvant therapy is associated with a reduced lymph node ratio in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.新辅助治疗与潜在可切除胰腺癌患者的淋巴结比率降低有关。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;22(4):1168-75. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4192-6. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
10
Role of the lymph node ratio in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Impact on patient stratification and prognosis.淋巴结比率在胰腺导管腺癌中的作用。对患者分层和预后的影响。
J Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov 1;104(6):629-33. doi: 10.1002/jso.22013. Epub 2011 Jun 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Reevaluation of regional lymph nodes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body and tail.胰体尾导管腺癌患者区域淋巴结的重新评估
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2022 Aug 7;7(1):147-156. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12608. eCollection 2023 Jan.