Tanaka Koji, Fujita Takeo, Nakajima Yasuaki, Okamura Akihiko, Kawada Kenro, Watanabe Masayuki, Doki Yuichiro
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
Department of Esophageal Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-Shi, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan.
Esophagus. 2024 Oct;21(4):464-471. doi: 10.1007/s10388-024-01084-6. Epub 2024 Aug 24.
The number of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) is an important prognostic factor for esophageal cancer, and N staging is important for prognostic stratification. The optimal cutoff values for clinical (cN) and pathologic N (pN) staging should be reconsidered following advances in neoadjuvant therapy.
The study included 655 patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2014 and December 2016 in four high-volume centers in Japan. Optimal cutoff values for the number of metastatic LNs in cN and pN staging were examined using X-tile, and their prognostic performance was validated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
The cutoff values were 1, 2, and 3 for cN staging and 1, 3, and 7 for pN staging. Prognosis was significantly better in patients with cN0 than in those with modified (m)-cN1 (p = 0.0211). However, prognosis was not significantly different among the patients with m-cN1, m-cN2, and m-cN3 disease. Prognosis was significantly different among the patients with pN0, pN1, pN2, and pN3 disease (pN0 vs pN1, p < 0.0001; pN1 vs pN2, p < 0.0001; pN2 vs pN3, p < 0.0001). In patients who received preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, prognosis, which was not significantly different among the patients with cN0, m-cN1, m-cN2, and m-cN3 disease (cN0 vs m-cN1, p = 0.5675; m-cN1 vs m-cN2, p = 0.4425; m-cN2 vs m-cN3, p = 0.7111), was significantly different among the patients with pN0, pN1, pN2, and pN3 disease (pN0 vs pN1, p = 0.0025; pN1 vs pN2, p = 0.0046; pN2 vs pN3, p = 0.0104).
cN has no prognostic impact in patients who underwent preoperative treatment followed by esophagectomy, despite the optimization of cN classification. The conventional TNM8th pN classification is useful for predicting prognosis even for patients who have undergone preoperative treatment. The conventional cutoffs for metastatic LNs in the International Union against Cancer tumor node metastasis staging system are valid and can be effectively used in clinical practice.
转移性淋巴结(LN)数量是食管癌的重要预后因素,N分期对预后分层很重要。新辅助治疗取得进展后,应重新考虑临床(cN)和病理N(pN)分期的最佳临界值。
本研究纳入了2014年1月至2016年12月期间在日本四个大型中心接受食管切除术的655例患者。使用X-tile软件检测cN和pN分期中转移性LN数量的最佳临界值,并采用Kaplan-Meier法验证其预后性能。
cN分期的临界值分别为1、2和3,pN分期的临界值分别为1、3和7。cN0患者的预后明显优于改良(m)-cN1患者(p = 0.0211)。然而,m-cN1、m-cN2和m-cN3患者的预后差异无统计学意义。pN0、pN1、pN2和pN3患者的预后差异有统计学意义(pN0 vs pN1,p < 0.0001;pN1 vs pN2,p < 0.0001;pN2 vs pN3,p < 0.0001)。在接受术前新辅助治疗的患者中,cN0、m-cN1、m-cN2和m-cN3患者的预后差异无统计学意义(cN0 vs m-cN1,p = 0.5675;m-cN1 vs m-cN2,p = 0.4425;m-cN2 vs m-cN3,p = 0.7111),而pN0、pN1、pN2和pN3患者的预后差异有统计学意义(pN0 vs pN1,p = 0.0025;pN1 vs pN2,p = 0.0046;pN2 vs pN3,p = 0.0104)。
尽管优化了cN分类,但cN对接受术前治疗后再行食管切除术的患者无预后影响。传统的TNM第8版pN分类即使对接受过术前治疗的患者也有助于预测预后。国际抗癌联盟肿瘤淋巴结转移分期系统中转移性LN的传统临界值是有效的,可在临床实践中有效应用。