Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Surgery logoLink to Frontiers in Surgery
. 2021 Oct 12;8:749156. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.749156

The Impact of Skip vs. Non-Skip N2 Lymph Node Metastasis on the Prognosis of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xinxin Wang 1, Haixie Guo 1, Quanteng Hu 1, Yongquan Ying 1, Baofu Chen 1,*
PMCID: PMC8546110  PMID: 34712694

Abstract

Objective: The skip N2 metastases were frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the better prognosis of NSCLC with a skip over non-skip N2 lymph node metastases is controversial. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the prognosis effect of skip N2 lymph node metastases on the survival of NSCLC.

Setting: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with the term of “N2” or “mediastinal lymph node” or “mediastinal nodal metastases”, and “lung cancer” and “skip” or “skipping” in the title/abstract field. The primary outcomes of interests are 3- and 5-year survival in NSCLC.

Participants: Patients who underwent complete resection by lobectomy, bilobectomy, or pneumonectomy with systemic ipsilateral lymphadenectomy and were staged as pathologically N2 were included.

Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The 3- and 5-year survival of NSCLC was analyzed. The impact of publication year, number of patients, baseline mean age, gender, histology, adjuvant therapy, number of skip N2 stations, and survival analysis methods on the primary outcome were also analyzed.

Results: A total of 21 of 409 studies with 6,806 patients met the inclusion criteria and were finally included for the analysis. The skip N2 lymph node metastases NSCLC had a significantly better overall survival (OS) than the non-skip N2 NSCLC [hazard ratio (HR), 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62–0.82; P < 0.001; I2 = 40.4%]. The skip N2 lymph node metastases NSCLC had significantly higher 3- and 5-year survival rates than the non-skip N2 lymph node metastases NSCLC (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66–0.84; P < 0.001; I2 = 60%; and OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71–0.86; P < 0.001; I2 = 67.1%, respectively).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that the prognosis of skip N2 lymph node metastases NSCLC is better than that of a non-skip N2 lymph node.

Keywords: skip N2, NSCLC, non-skip N2, lymph node metastases, survival

Introduction

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the world (1). Approximately 30% of the NSCLC were locally advanced at the time of diagnosis (2). The most important risk factor in completely resected NSCLC is metastasis to the mediastinal lymph nodes (N2). The survival rates of N2-NSCLC after surgical treatment ranged from 19.2 to 40% which means that there was a large heterogeneity among N2-NSCLC (3–5). Skip metastases (pN0N2), pathological N2 NSCLC without hilar lymph nodes involvement (N1), were an important subgroup of N2-NSCLC. It was reported that skip N2 occurred in approximately 17.2–42.7% of surgically resected N2-NSCLC (6, 7). Skip N2 was reported to be an independent prognostic factor for better overall survival (OS) of the NSCLC (8, 9). However, the prognostic impact of skip N2 metastases was still under debate. The aim of this study was to elucidate the prognostic impact of skip N2 lymph node metastases on the OS of NSCLC through a meta-analysis of the published studies.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from the date of database inception to Jan 2021. The following search terms were searched in the title/abstract field: “N2” or “mediastinal lymph node” or “mediastinal nodal metastases” and “lung cancer” and “skip” or “skipping”. Only articles in the English language were included. The reference lists of relevant review articles were checked to identify extra relevant articles.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Studies must include patients with NSCLC who had undergone complete resection by lobectomy, bilobectomy, or pneumonectomy with systemic ipsilateral lymphadenectomy and were staged as pathological N2.

Studies must provide survival information on the patients with skip and non-skip N2 mediastinal nodal metastases.

Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if the patients underwent the surgical operation of segmentectomy, wedge resection, or lymph node sampling.

Studies were excluded if the patients who were pathological N2 with pleural effusion or distant metastases.

Articles from the same study with duplicated data.

Studies do not provide survival information on patients with a skip or non-skip N2 mediastinal nodal metastases separately.

Data Extraction

Data were extracted independently by two authors (XW, HG). If there was a disagreement, a consensus was achieved by discussion. The following data were extracted from each included article: first author, publication year, study design, inclusion criteria, number of patients, patients and tumor characteristics, operation techniques, survival curve, hazard ratio (HR), 3- and 5-year survival rates.

Quality Assessment

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to access the quality of included studies, with the highest score of 9. A high-quality study was defined as a study with a score of ≥6 (10). The assessment was performed independently by two authors (QH and YY). If necessary, a third author (BC) was consulted to settle disagreements.

Statistical Methods

Stata (version 12.0; StataCorp, College Station, Texas, United States) was used to perform all the statistical analyses. Between-study heterogeneity was calculated using Higgins' I2 statistics (11). A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis was performed for outcomes in consideration of interstudy heterogeneity. Studies with an I2 statistics of >50% were considered of a high degree of heterogeneity. A summary of the odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding 95% CI were computed for the dichotomous outcomes. To reduce the bias caused by different follow-up periods and the timing of censored patients between the two groups, OS in terms of log-transformed HR and 95% CI was analyzed using an inverse variance model. Relevant effect measures were calculated using methods described by Tierney et al. (12). Publication bias was assessed qualitatively using funnel plots and quantitively using Egger's linear regression method. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of covariates on the pooled estimates and the heterogeneity across studies with covariates including publication year, baseline mean age, the proportion of men, operation techniques, tumor location, and histological type. The overall effect was considered statistically significant if the two-sided p-value was < 0.05.

Results

The literature search identified 409 relevant studies for review. Based on the title and abstracts, 60 studies were selected and reviewed for full text. Six studies were excluded for including patients with lymph node sampling. Nine studies were eliminated for the duplicated data. A total of five studies not providing survival information were excluded. Three studies including patients of not pathologically N2 were excluded. Five studies were eliminated because of including operation technique of segmentectomy or wedge resection. Lack of operation information was excluded in one study and three studies were eliminated for low quality scores. Three studies with patients of R1 or R2 resection were excluded. The full text was not available for four studies.

A total of 21 studies with 6,806 patients were included for the meta-analysis (Figure 1) (7, 9, 13–31). All the studies were retrospective studies. The clinical information of 2,258 patients of skip N2 and 4,548 patients of non-skip N2 were retrieved for further analysis. A total of 21 studies were performed in China (8), Japan (6), Italy (2), Germany (1), France (1), Turkey (1), Poland (1), and Croatia (1). All the studies were published between 1999 and 2020. Seven studies were published before 2010. Baseline characteristics in one study were adequately matched for age, gender, surgical procedure, tumor size, histology, T stage, and use of adjuvant therapy. The detailed baseline information was summarized in Table 1. The results of the quality assessment of the studies were shown in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of studies selection.

Table 1.

Summary of baseline characteristics.

Publication year Country Author No. of Patients Mean age, Years* Male, % Adjuvant treatment, % Squamous cell cancer, % Adenocarcinoma, % Lobectomy, % Bilobectomy, % Pneumonectomy, % Tumor location, left %
Skip N2 Non-skip N2 Skip N2 Non-skip N2 Skip N2 Non-skip N2 Skip N2 Non-skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2 Skip N2 non–skip N2
2017 China Jun Zhao et al. (13) 137 666 61 (32–78) 58 (30–81) 83.21 64.11 NR NR 50.36 37.54 49.64 62.46 74.45 64.26 11.68 13.81 13.87 21.92 30.65 43.7
2019 China Lin Wang et al. (14) 130 130 NR NR 76.9 76.2 89.2 85.4 45.4 42.3 47.7 53.8 78.5 76.2 7.7 9.2 9.2 10 NR NR
2018 Turkey Serkan Yazgan et al. (15) 59 71 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2007 Croatia Nenad Ilic et al. (16) 21 64 NR NR 62 81.3 NR NR 46 21.9 18 62.5 71 57.8 0 12.5 29 29.7 38 43.8
2013 Japan Makoto Sonobe et al. (17) 248 248 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2001 Japan Yukito Ichinose et al. (18) 110 296 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR
2011 Japan Tomoyuki Nakagiri et al. (19) 43 74 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2015 China Hang Li et al. (20) 45 132 56.9 ± 1.6 56.1 ± 1.4 44.44 57.58 100 100 0 0 100 100 NR NR 0 0 NR NR 33.33 53.03
2014 France Marc Riquet et al. (21) 86 115 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 100 100 0 0 0 0 NR NR
1999 Japan Motoyasu Sagawa et al. (7) 76 102 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2003 Poland J. Gawrychowski et al. (22) 23 41 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2003 Germany Klaus L. Prenzel et al. (9) 17 28 68.1 (43–78) 59.5 (34–74) 70.6 71.4 NR NR 53 32 35 61 NR NR NR NR NR NR 58.8 53.6
2016 China Dawei Guo et al. (23) 34 72 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR
2020 China J. Jin et al. (24) 98 199 NR NR 68.4 71.4 100 100 NR NR 57.1 53.8 98 96 0 0 2 4 32.7 41.2
2005 Italy Christian Casali et al. (25) 63 120 NR NR NR NR 100 100 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2014 Japan Junji Ichinose et al. (26) 25 42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2013 China Dong Yan et al. (27) 34 81 NR NR NR NR 100 100 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR
2020 China Lin Wang et al. (28) 81 206 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 100 100 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
2020 China Xin Li et al. (29) 881 1772 59.66 ± 8.97 58.47 ± 8.98 66.9 62.7 42.2 42.8 33.4 23.9 60.6 69.3 83.5 82.8 NR NR 11.7 14.2 49.2 55.9
2005 Japan Masaki Tomita et al. (30) 25 35 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR
2018 Italy Pietro Bertoglio et al. (31) 22 54 66.4 ± 7.9 67.3 ± 7.3 81.8 68.5 86.4 94.4 27.3 48.1 63.6 44.4 100 92.6 0 3.7 0 3.7 22.7 48.1
Open in a new tab
*

Parenthesis indicates range; otherwise, data are expressed as mean ± SD. NR, not reported.

Table 2.

Quality assessment of the nonrandomized studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Publicationyear Study Selection Comparability (Based on design and analysis) Outcome
Representativeness of exposed cohort Selection of non-exposed cohort Ascertainment of exposure Outcome of interest absent at start of study Assessment of outcome Follow–up long enough for outcomes to occur Adequacy of follow–up Total score
2017 Jun Zhao et al. (13) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2019 Lin Wang et al. (14) 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9
2018 Serkan Yazgan et al. (15) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2007 Nenad Ilic et al. (16) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2013 Makoto Sonobe et al. (17) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
2001 Yukito Ichinose et al. (18) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2011 Tomoyuki Nakagiri et al. (19) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
2015 Hang Li et al. (20) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
2014 Marc Riquet et al. (21) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
1999 Motoyasu Sagawa et al. (7) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2003 J. Gawrychowski et al. (22) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2003 Klaus L. Prenzel et al. (9) 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 8
2016 Dawei Guo et al. (23) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2020 J. Jin et al. (24) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
2005 Christian Casali et al. (25) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2014 Junji Ichinose et al. (26) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2013 Dong Yan et al. (27) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2020 Lin Wang et al. (28) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
2020 Xin Li et al. (29) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
2005 Masaki Tomita et al. (30) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
2018 Pietro Bertoglio et al. (31) 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 6
Open in a new tab

Overall Survival

The pooled analysis demonstrated that the skip N2 group had a significantly better OS than the non-skip N2 group with a moderate heterogeneity (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62–0.82; P < 0.001; I2 = 40.4%; Figure 2). The skip N2 group still had a significantly better OS in the pooled analysis of multivariable analysis study (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65–0.86; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; Table 3) and univariable analysis study (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55–0.84; P < 0.001; I2 = 56.8%; Table 3). The univariable studies had a high degree of heterogeneity. The skip N2 group had a significantly better OS in the pooled analysis of single skip N2 station and mixed single or multiple N2 station (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58–0.81; P < 0.001; I2 = 0% and HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60–0.87; P < 0.01; I2 = 51.7%, respectively; Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS).

Table 3.

Summary of sensitivity analysis for overall survival and 5-year survival rates.

Variables 5-year survival rate OS
Data sets* Effect estimate † P value I2 Data sets* Effect estimate † P value I2
Adenocarcinoma 2 (464) 0.540 (0.416–0.702) <0.001 0% 2 (464) 0.517 (0.376–0.711) <0.001 0%
Mixed type 13 (3,100) 0.829 (0.765–0.898) <0.001 48.6% 12 (4,981) 0.755 (0.671–0.895) <0.01 31.5%
Publication year >2010 11 (2,959) 0.780 (0.683–0.891) <0.001 75.4% 12 (5,183) 0.721 (0.614–0.845) <0.001 48.1%
Publication year <2010 6 (936) 0.788 (0.719–0.863) <0.001 0% 5 (660) 0.682 (0.529–0.878) <0.01 13.2%
No. of patients >100 13 (3,650) 0.791 (0.711–0.879) <0.001 73% 11 (5,446) 0.715 (0.611–0.836) <0.001 52.9%
No. of patients <100 4 (245) 0.735 (0.622–0.867) <0.001 0% 6 (397) 0.691 (0.520–0.918) <0.05 2.3%
Mean age >60 4 (1,202) 0.842 (0.762–0.931) <0.01 8.7% 2 (523) 0.678 (0.514–0.894) <0.01 0%
Mean age <60 2 (253) 0.673 (0.497–0.911) <0.05 13.5% 3 (2,906) 0.783 (0.640–0.958) <0.05 0%
Adjuvant therapy for all 3 (595) 0.880 (0.772–1.003) 0.055 0% 2 (412) 0.835 (0.593–1.174) 0.299 0%
Adjuvant therapy not for all 14 (3,300) 0.757 (0.676–0.848) <0.001 73% 15 (5,431) 0.696 (0.598–0.809) <0.001 47.3%
Univariable analysis 9 (2,080) 0.715 (0.582–0.878) <0.01 84% 11 (2,232) 0.681 (0.549–0.844) <0.001 56.8%
Multivariable analysis 5 (958) 0.780 (0.703–0.866) <0.001 0% 6 (3,611) 0.744 (0.645–0.859) <0.001 0%
Single N2 station 5 (1,065) 0.738 (0.661–0.823) <0.001 0% 6 (1,150) 0.682 (0.575–0.809) <0.001 0%
Mixed single or multipleN2 station 12 (2,830) 0.808 (0.726–0.899) <0.001 66.4% 11 (4,693) 0.722 (0.598–0.872) <0.01 51.7%
Open in a new tab
*

Values in parentheses are the number of patients.

†

Values are hazard ratios (HRs) 95% CIs for OS; HRs below 1 favor skip N2, whereas values are odds ratio (ORs) 95% CIs for 5-year survival rate; ORs below 1 favor skip N2.

3- and 5-year Survival Rates

The pooled analysis demonstrated that the skip N2 group had significantly higher 3- and 5-year survival rates than the non-skip N2 group (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66–0.84; P < 0.001; I2 = 60%; and OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71–0.86; P < 0.001; I2 = 67.1%, respectively; Figures 3, 4) with a high heterogeneity. The mean 3- and 5-year survival rates in the skip N2 group were 60.4 and 43.4% and those of the non-skip N2 group were 46.6 and 25.3%, respectively.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Pooled OR for 3-year survival rates.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Pooled OR for 5-year survival rates.

Sensitivity Analysis and Subgroup Analysis

The sensitivity analyses for OS and 5-year survival are summarized in Table 3. The sensitive analysis including publication year, number of patients, baseline mean age, the proportion of male, histology of adenocarcinoma or other, with or without adjuvant therapy, single or mixed single and multiple skip N2 station and analysis method of multivariable or univariable showed a survival benefit for skip N2 over non-skip N2, consistent with evidence from the primary outcome analysis except in the subgroup of adjuvant therapy.

Meta-Regression Analysis

Meta-regression analysis showed a trend for publication year, baseline proportion of male, histology of adenocarcinoma or squamous cell, operation technique of lobectomy, tumor location of the left side. The trend was not statistically significant except for the histology of the squamous cells (P < 0.05) (Figure 5). The contribution of different study characteristics to the heterogeneity was calculated. The proportion of heterogeneity ranged from −22.67 to 100% for all the covariates. The remaining heterogeneity was small (τ2 range from 0 to 0.0316).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Meta regression analysis for OS. Bubble plot with fitted meta regression line of the log HR for (A) publication year, (B) baseline proportion of male, (C) baseline proportion of adenocarcinoma, (D) baseline proportion of squamous cell cancer, and (E) baseline proportion of lobectomy, (F) baseline proportion of the left side tumor location.

Publication Bias

The funnel plots of OS and 3- and 5-year survival outcomes for skip and non-skip N2 groups are shown in Figure 6. There was publication bias for OS and 5-year survival outcomes (Egger's p-value, < 0.05) but no bias for 3-year survival outcome (Egger's P > 0.05).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot of OS, 3- and 5-year survival outcomes. (A) Egger plot for 3-year survival rates; (B) Egger plot for 5-year survival rates; (C) Egger plot for OS.

Discussion

Pathological N2 involvement is an important prognostic factor for NSCLC. Skip N2 disease is an important subclassification of N2 disease and accounts for 17.2–42.7% of resected N2 NSCLC (6, 7). The impact of skip N2 metastases on survival remains controversial. Several studies found a better OS for skip N2 disease than the non-skip N2 disease (17, 32). However, other studies did not find a significant difference in 5-year OS between the two groups (33, 34). Recently, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer suggested that the skip N2 should be treated as a new pN subclassification because of its better survival (35, 36). However, the evidence was based on the analysis of the patients from the cancer registry database and the clinical characteristics and operation details were not provided which still casts doubt on the conclusion. The present meta-analysis demonstrated that the skip N2 disease provided a better survival for NSCLC with a pooled analysis of the 24 studies.

The relationship is close in anatomy between N1 and N2 disease and the prognosis is also similar in some subgroups of N1 and N2 disease. It was reported that patients of N1 with hilar nodal involvement and patients of single N2 station metastasis had a comparable prognosis (37). Another recent study found that the 5-year OS was similar between patients with N1 metastasis and single skip N2 station metastasis, significantly better than the patients with single non-skip N2 station metastasis (15). Our study showed that the better prognostic impact is consistent in the single N2 station metastasis subgroup.

Multiple N2 stations involvement was reported to be a poor prognostic factor for survival (14, 31, 38). The new 8th tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging system for lung cancer did not further classify the N2b group into multiple skip N2 stations and multiple non-skip N2 station diseases. Our result showed that the influence of skip N2 in multistation metastases was not significant for OS although there were only two studies providing the survival information on the subgroup of N2 multistation metastases. Large studies may be needed to further elaborate the prognostic factor of multiskip N2 stations on survival.

Adenocarcinoma is an important histology subtype of NSCLC and the incidence has increased fast and accounted for almost one-half of all lung cancer in recent years (35, 39, 40). There was a higher risk of lymph node metastasis associated with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell cancer (41). Histological and molecular heterogeneity also existed in adenocarcinoma (42). The subgroup analysis of our study showed that skip N2 was also a benefit prognostic factor for adenocarcinoma.

The result of our study supported the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system which classified the N2 into N2a1 (skip single station involved), N2a2 (non-skip single station involved), and N2b (multiple stations involved). Our result suggested that these patients with skip N2 metastases should be carefully recognized and surgery is an optimal option for these patients.

Limitations

At first, this study is the first meta-analysis focusing on the prognosis of skip N2 lymph node metastasis on NSCLC and provides a convincing result that the prognosis of skip N2 lymph node metastasis NSCLC is better compared with that of non-skip N2 lymph node metastasis. Second, all the studies were retrospective studies. Third, the baseline clinical characteristics and adjuvant therapy in skip N2 and non-skip N2 were not matched among studies. Fourth, a high degree of heterogeneity and publication bias was found. Despite the use of meta-regression and numerous sensitivity analyses, significant heterogeneity remained. The results should be interpreted with caution. At last, most of the patients were Asians and the result may not be applicable for other ethnicities.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that the skip N2 lymph node metastases are a prognostic factor for better survival in N2-NSCLC.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

XW drafted the manuscript. BC revised the manuscript. HG and XW extracted the data and XW did the analysis. QH and YY assessed the quality of the included studies. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The work was supported by the Taizhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (No. 1801ky09) and the Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission (No. 2019KY773).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  • 1.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clinic. (2021) 71:7–33. 10.3322/caac.21654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Morgensztern D, Ng SH, Gao F, Govindan R. Trends in stage distribution for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a National Cancer Database survey. J Thoracic Oncol. (2010) 5:29–33. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181c5920c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hsieh CP, Fu JY, Liu YH, Yang CT, Hsieh MJ, Tsai YH, et al. Prognostic factors in resectable pathological N2 disease of non-small cell lung cancer. Biomed J. (2015) 38:329–35. 10.4103/2319-4170.145765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vansteenkiste JF, De Leyn PR, Deneffe GJ, Stalpaert G, Nackaerts KL, Lerut TE, et al. Survival and prognostic factors in resected N2 non-small cell lung cancer: a study of 140 cases. Leuven lung cancer group. Ann Thoracic Surg. (1997) 63:1441–50. 10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00314-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Detterbeck F. What to do with “Surprise” N2?: intraoperative management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thoracic Oncol. (2008) 3:289–302. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181630ebd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li GL, Zhu Y, Zheng W, Guo CH, Chen C. Analysis of factors influencing skip lymphatic metastasis in pN(2) non-small cell lung cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. (2012) 24:340–5. 10.1007/s11670-012-0273-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sagawa M, Sakurada A, Fujimura S, Sato M, Takahashi S, Usuda K, et al. Five-year survivors with resected pN2 nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer. (1999) 85:864–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guerrera F, Renaud S, Tabbó F, Voegeli AC, Filosso PL, Legrain M, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations are linked to skip N2 lymph node metastasis in resected non-small-cell lung cancer adenocarcinomas. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. (2017) 51:680–8. 10.1093/ejcts/ezw362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Prenzel KL, Mönig SP, Sinning JM, Baldus SE, Gutschow CA, Grass G, et al. Role of skip metastasis to mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer. J Surg Oncol. (2003) 82:256–60. 10.1002/jso.10219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available online at: http://wwwohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfordasp (2011).
  • 11.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. (2003) 327:557–60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. (2007) 8:16. 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhao J, Li J, Li N, Gao S. Clinical significance of skipping mediastinal lymph node metastasis in N2 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:1683–8. 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang L, Zhan C, Gu J, Xi J, Lin Z, Xue L, et al. Role of skip mediastinal lymph node metastasis for patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Clin Lung Cancer. (2019) 20:e346–e55. 10.1016/j.cllc.2018.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yazgan S, Ucvet A, Gursoy S, Samancilar O, Yagci T. Single-station skip-N2 disease: good prognosis in resected non-small-cell lung cancer (long-term results in skip-N2 disease). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2019) 28:247–52. 10.1093/icvts/ivy244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ilic N, Petricevic A, Arar D, Kotarac S, Banovic J, Ilic NF, et al. Skip mediastinal nodal metastases in the IIIa/N2 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. (2007) 2:1018–21. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318158d471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sonobe M, Date H, Wada H, Okubo K, Hamakawa H, Teramukai S, et al. Prognostic factors after complete resection of pN2 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2013) 146:788–95. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ichinose Y, Kato H, Koike T, Tsuchiya R, Fujisawa T, Shimizu N, et al. Overall survival and local recurrence of 406 completely resected stage IIIa-N2 non-small cell lung cancer patients: questionnaire survey of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group to plan for clinical trials. Lung cancer. (2001) 34:29–36. 10.1016/S0169-5002(01)00207-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nakagiri T, Sawabata N, Funaki S, Inoue M, Kadota Y, Shintani Y, et al. Validation of pN2 sub-classifications in patients with pathological stage IIIA N2 non-small cell lung cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2011) 12:733–8. 10.1510/icvts.2010.249896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li H, Hu H, Wang R, Li Y, Shen L, Sun Y, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma: Are skip N2 metastases different from non-skip? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2015) 150:790–5. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Riquet M, Rivera C, Pricopi C, Arame A. Pimpec-Barthes FLJEjoc-tsojotEAfC-tS. Is the lymphatic drainage of lung cancer lobe-specific? Surg Appraisal. (2014) 47:543–9. 10.1093/ejcts/ezu226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gawrychowski J, Gabriel A, Lackowska B. Heterogeneity of stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and evaluation of late results of surgical treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2003) 29:178–84. 10.1053/ejso.2002.1321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Guo D, Ni Y, Lv X, Zhang Z, Ye P. Distribution and prognosis of mediastinal lymph node metastases of nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Cancer Res Therapeut. (2016) 12:120–5. 10.4103/0973-1482.191613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jin J, Xu Y, Hu X, Chen M, Fang M, Hang Q, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy option based on mediastinal lymph node reclassification for patients with pN2 non-small-cell lung cancer. Current Oncol. (2020) 27:e283–e93. 10.3747/co.27.5899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Casali C, Stefani A, Natali P, Rossi G, Morandi U. Prognostic factors in surgically resected N2 non-small cell lung cancer: the importance of patterns of mediastinal lymph nodes metastases. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. (2005) 28:33–8. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ichinose J, Murakawa T, Hino H, Konoeda C, Inoue Y, Kitano K, et al. Prognostic impact of the current Japanese nodal classification on outcomes in resected non-small cell lung cancer. Chest. (2014) 146:644–9. 10.1378/chest.14-0159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yan D, Wei P, An G, Chen W. Prognostic potential of ERCC1 protein expression and clinicopathologic factors in stage III/N2 non-small cell lung cancer. J Cardiothorac Surg. (2013) 8:149. 10.1186/1749-8090-8-149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang L, Ye G, Xue L, Zhan C, Gu J, Xi J, et al. Skip N2 metastasis in pulmonary adenocarcinoma: good prognosis similar to N1 disease. Clin Lung Cancer. (2020) 21:e423–e34. 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.02.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li X, Li X, Fu X, Liu L, Liu Y, Zhao H, et al. Survival benefit of skip metastases in surgically resected N2 non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter observational study of a large cohort of the Chinese patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2020) 46:1874–81. 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tomita M, Matsuzaki Y, Shimizu T, Hara M, Ayabe T, Onitsuka T. Vascular endothelial growth factor expression in pN2 non-small cell lung cancer: lack of prognostic value. Respirology. (2005) 10:31–5. 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2005.00655.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bertoglio P, Ricciardi S, Alì G, Aprile V, Korasidis S, Palmiero G, et al. N2 lung cancer is not all the same: an analysis of different prognostic groups. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2018) 27:720–6. 10.1093/icvts/ivy171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yoshino I, Yokoyama H, Yano T, Ueda T, Takai E, Mizutani K, et al. Skip metastasis to the mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. (1996) 62:1021–5. 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00470-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tateishi M, Fukuyama Y, Hamatake M, Kohdono S, Ishida T, Sugimachi K. Skip mediastinal lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer. J Surg Oncol. (1994) 57:139–42. 10.1002/jso.2930570302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.De Rosa V, Iommelli F, Monti M, Fonti R, Votta G, Stoppelli MP, et al. Reversal of warburg effect and reactivation of oxidative phosphorylation by differential inhibition of EGFR signaling pathways in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2015) 21:5110–20. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nicholson AG, Chansky K, Crowley J, Beyruti R, Kubota K, Turrisi A, et al. The international association for the study of lung cancer lung cancer staging project: proposals for the revision of the clinical and pathologic staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming eighth edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. (2016) 11:300–11. 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kim H, Ahn YC, Pyo H, Oh D, Noh JM, Sun JM, et al. Do new pN subclassifications proposed by IASLC's lung cancer staging project agree with ypN categories after trimodality therapy for initial N2 disease? J Thorac Oncol. (2016) 11:2202–7. 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Asamura H, Suzuki K, Kondo H, Tsuchiya R. Where is the boundary between N1 and N2 stations in lung cancer? Ann. Thorac Surg. (2000) 70:1839–45. 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)01817-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Asamura H, Chansky K, Crowley J, Goldstraw P, Rusch VW, Vansteenkiste JF, et al. The international association for the study of lung cancer lung cancer staging project: proposals for the revision of the N descriptors in the forthcoming 8th edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. (2015) 10:1675–84. 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Parkin DM, Ferlay J, Curado MP, Bray F, Edwards B, Shin HR, et al. Fifty years of cancer incidence: CI5 I-IX. Int J Cancer. (2010) 127:2918–27. 10.1002/ijc.25517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lortet-Tieulent J, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J, Rutherford M, Weiderpass E, Bray F. International trends in lung cancer incidence by histological subtype: adenocarcinoma stabilizing in men but still increasing in women. Lung Cancer. (2014) 84:13–22. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Deng HY, Zeng M, Li G, Alai G, Luo J, Liu LX, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma has a higher risk of lymph node metastasis than squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Surg. (2019) 43:955–62. 10.1007/s00268-018-4848-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lu T, Yang X, Huang Y, Zhao M, Li M, Ma K, et al. Trends in the incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with lung cancer in the last four decades. Cancer Manag Res. (2019) 11:943–53. 10.2147/CMAR.S187317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Articles from Frontiers in Surgery are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES