Abstract
Background
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of cancer‐related deaths worldwide and is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK. The status of lymph node metastasis is a key factor for predicting the prognosis of a patient's CRC.
Aims
This study aimed to analyze the demographics of left-sided colonic and rectal cancers at a single institution. We looked closely at the correlation between patient age and various histological factors. We tried to find any significant difference in lymph node yield (LNY) between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). We aimed to identify any statistical correlation between LNY and lymph node positivity (LNP) with other patient, surgical and histopathological features.
Methodology
This is a retrospective, non-interventional review of consecutive patients who underwent left-sided colonic and rectal cancer resections over a three-year period between 01 April 2018 and 31 March 2021. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used. Chi-squared / Fisher exact test was used on a categorical scale between two or more groups and non-parametric setting for qualitative data analysis.
Results
A total of 102 patients were included in the study. No statistical correlation was found between the age of the patient with the LNY, LNP, location of the tumor, type, and urgency of the operation. LNY ranged between one and 43 nodes (median (interquartile range (IQR)) 17, 8). There was no statistically significant difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) (p=0.1449). Significant statistical correlation was identified between LNP and completeness of resection (CoR) (p=0.039), vascular invasion (VI) (p<0.001), perineural invasion (PI) (p<0.001), and circumferential resectional margin involvement (CRMI) (p=0.039).
Discussion
LNY and LNP are important prognostic indices in colorectal cancer. Patient age, tumor location, the urgency of surgery, and consultant experience did not significantly impact the LNY. Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI and PI comparable to literature. Contrary to other studies, we found no statistical significance between LS vs. OS and LNY. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level remains controversial.
Keywords: colorectal cancer, anterior resection, crm involvement, perineural invasion, vascular invasion, open colorectal surgery, laparoscopic colorectal surgery, lymph node metastasis, lymph node status, lymph node yield
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of cancer‐related deaths worldwide [1] and is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the United Kingdom (UK) [2,3]. Men are more likely to have a higher incidence of CRC in older age groups. However, there is only a small difference in the incidence rates between men and women aged less than 40 years [4,5]. Data from the UK suggests that men have a higher proportion of rectal cancers and women right-sided colon cancers [5].
The status of lymph node metastasis is a key factor in predicting the patient's CRC prognosis. The American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) recommends that at least 12 lymph nodes be examined for each surgical specimen of CRC [6]. The lymph node ratio (LNR) is also a prognostic factor that is inversely correlated with survival outcomes [7-9]. Although the average number of lymph nodes evaluated has risen in the past decades through better surgical standards, the rate of node-positive colon cancer, surprisingly, has not increased [10,11].
Aims and objectives
We aimed to analyze the demographics of left-sided colonic and rectal cancers in a single institution. We studied the correlation between patient age with lymph node yield (LNY), lymph node positivity (LNP), location of the tumor, type, and urgency of the operation. We looked to identify any statistical correlation between the location of the tumor with the urgency, type of operation, LNY, and LNP. We aimed to identify any significant difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). We evaluated the correlation between LNY and LNP with tumor (T) stage, completeness of resection (CoR), vascular invasion (VI), perineural invasion (PI), degree of differentiation (DoD), consultant experience (CE), and CRM involvement (CRMI).
Materials and methods
This is a retrospective, non-interventional review of consecutive patients who underwent left-sided colon and rectal cancer resection over a three-year period (01 April 2018 and 31 March 2021) at a single institution. For this study, we defined left-sided colorectal cancers as descending, sigmoid, rectosigmoid, and rectal cancers based on pre-operative imaging. Both elective and emergency cases were included in the study. Right colon, transverse colon, and splenic flexure cancers were excluded from the study. Patients with polyp cancers and incomplete data were also excluded from the study.
Data was retrieved from the local hospital cancer database, and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, all the data was formatted in a datasheet using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA). Data collection variables included demographic data, i.e., age, gender, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA). Further data was collected from the histology reports and individual patient operation notes using the hospital's electronic patient records. After initial data collection, the data was checked and verified independently by two authors to eliminate the risk of error. The study was registered locally as an audit after approval from the colorectal cancer lead. Ethics committee approval was not required as it was a retrospective non-interventional study.
Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was carried out in the present study. Continuous variables were presented on Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) while categorical variables as Number (n) and Percentage (%). Significance was assessed at a 5% level of significance. Chi-square / Fisher Exact test was used to find the significance of study parameters on a categorical scale between two or more groups and non-parametric setting for Qualitative data analysis. Fisher exact test was used for very small cell samples. P-value (p)<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical software, namely SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and R environment version 3.2.2, were used for the data analysis.
Results
A total of 102 patients were included in the study, of which 63 (61.8%) were males and 39 (38.2%) were females. The age range was 34 to 88 years (Mean + SD: 66.5 + 11.5 years) (Table 1).
Table 1. Patient demographics.
ASA: American Society of Anaesthesiologists
| Variables | No. of Patients (n=102) | % |
| Age in Years | ||
| Up to 50 | 7 | 6.9 |
| 51-60 | 25 | 24.5 |
| 61-70 | 32 | 31.4 |
| 71-80 | 25 | 24.5 |
| >80 | 13 | 12.7 |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 39 | 38.2 |
| Male | 63 | 61.8 |
| ASA grade | ||
| ASA 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| ASA2 | 66 | 64.7 |
| ASA3 | 36 | 35.3 |
| ASA 4 | 0 | 0.0 |
| ASA 5 | 0 | 0.0 |
LNY and LNP on histology were noted for all patients. We analyzed the correlation of patient age with the LNY, LNP, tumor location, type, and urgency of the operation. There was no statistically significant correlation (Table 2).
Table 2. Correlation of patient age with the LNY, LNP, tumor location, type, and urgency of the operation.
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | Age in Years (n=102) | Total | P-Value | ||||
| Up to 50 | 51-60 | 61-70 | 71-80 | >80 | |||
| Location of tumor | |||||||
| Sigmoid | 2(28.6%) | 12(48%) | 11(34.4%) | 15(60%) | 5(38.5%) | 45(44.1%) | 0.406 |
| Recto sigmoid | 1(14.3%) | 5(20%) | 4(12.5%) | 1(4%) | 1(7.7%) | 12(11.8%) | |
| Rectum | 4(57.1%) | 8(32%) | 17(53.1%) | 9(36%) | 7(53.8%) | 45(44.1%) | |
| Urgency of surgery | |||||||
| Elective | 5(71.4%) | 18(72%) | 27(84.4%) | 22(88%) | 10(76.9%) | 82(80.4%) | 0.543 |
| Emergency | 2(28.6%) | 7(28%) | 5(15.6%) | 3(12%) | 3(23.1%) | 20(19.6%) | |
| Type of surgery | |||||||
| Laparoscopic | 6(85.7%) | 23(92%) | 29(90.6%) | 19(76%) | 9(69.2%) | 86(84.3%) | 0.336 |
| Open | 1(14.3%) | 1(4%) | 3(9.4%) | 4(16%) | 3(23.1%) | 12(11.8%) | |
| Converted | 0(0%) | 1(4%) | 0(0%) | 2(8%) | 1(7.7%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| LNY | |||||||
| 1-10 | 0(0%) | 3(12%) | 6(18.8%) | 2(8%) | 3(23.1%) | 14(13.7%) | 0.121 |
| 11-20 | 3(42.9%) | 10(40%) | 20(62.5%) | 16(64%) | 9(69.2%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 2(28.6%) | 9(36%) | 5(15.6%) | 6(24%) | 0(0%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 1(14.3%) | 2(8%) | 1(3.1%) | 0(0%) | 1(7.7%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 1(14.3%) | 1(4%) | 0(0%) | 1(4%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| LNP | |||||||
| 0 | 3(42.9%) | 19(76%) | 21(65.6%) | 14(56%) | 8(61.5%) | 65(63.7%) | 0.603 |
| 1-2 | 2(28.6%) | 3(12%) | 6(18.8%) | 6(24%) | 5(38.5%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 3-5 | 2(28.6%) | 2(8%) | 3(9.4%) | 4(16%) | 0(0%) | 11(10.8%) | |
| >5 | 0(0%) | 1(4%) | 2(6.3%) | 1(4%) | 0(0%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| Total | 7(100%) | 25(100%) | 32(100%) | 25(100%) | 13(100%) | 102(100%) | |
There was no significant statistical correlation between the location of the tumor with the urgency (p=0.81), type of operation (p=0.86), LNY (p=0.48), and LNP (p=0.92). We found no statistical correlation between the urgency of surgery with LNY (p=0.25) and LNP (p=0.91).
LNY ranged between 1 and 43 nodes with a median (IQR) of 17 (8) in this study. We analyzed the difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). LNY in LS ranged between 1 and 43 nodes (median (IQR): 17(8)). For OS, LNY ranged between 8 and 27 nodes (median (IQR): 13.5(5.5)). There was no statistically significant difference (P=0.1449, Mann-Whitney test).
We found no statistical correlation between T stage and LNY (p=0.08) and LNP (p=0.12). CoR was split into R0, R1, and R2 and studied against LNY and LNP (Table 3). There were no R2 resections in our study. There was no statistical significance between CoR and LNY (p=1). However, a direct correlation was found between the CoR and LNP (p=0.039). Vascular invasion (VI) was correlated with the LNY and LNP (Table 4). Although there was no statistical significance between VI and LNY (p=0.22), there was a statistical significance between the LNP and VI (p<0.001). Perineural invasion (PI) was correlated with the LNP and LNY (Table 5). Although there was no statistical significance between PI and LNY (p=0.53), there was a statistical significance between LNP and PI (p<0.001).
Table 3. Correlation between LNY and LNP with CoR.
** Statistically significant
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | Completeness of Resection (CoR) | Total | P-Value | |
| R0 | R1 | |||
| LNY | ||||
| 1-10 | 14(13.9%) | 0(0%) | 14(13.7%) | 1.000 |
| 11-20 | 57(56.4%) | 1(100%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 22(21.8%) | 0(0%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 5(5%) | 0(0%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 3(3%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| LNP | ||||
| 0 | 65(64.4%) | 0(0%) | 65(63.7%) | 0.039** |
| 1-2 | 22(21.8%) | 0(0%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 3-5 | 11(10.9%) | 0(0%) | 11(10.8%) | |
| >5 | 3(3%) | 1(100%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| Total | 101(100%) | 1(100%) | 102(100%) | |
Table 4. Correlation between LNY and LNP with VI.
** Statistically significant
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | Vascular invasion (VI) | Total | P-Value | |
| No | Yes | |||
| LNY | ||||
| 1-10 | 13(17.1%) | 1(3.8%) | 14(13.7%) | 0.219 |
| 11-20 | 43(56.6%) | 15(57.7%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 14(18.4%) | 8(30.8%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 3(3.9%) | 2(7.7%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 3(3.9%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| LNP | ||||
| 0 | 56(73.7%) | 9(34.6%) | 65(63.7%) | <0.001** |
| 1-2 | 14(18.4%) | 8(30.8%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 3-5 | 5(6.6%) | 6(23.1%) | 11(10.8%) | |
| >5 | 1(1.3%) | 3(11.5%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| Total | 76(100%) | 26(100%) | 102(100%) | |
Table 5. Correlation between LNY and LNP with PI.
** Statistically significant
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | Perineural Invasion (PI) | Total | P-Value | |
| No | Yes | |||
| LNY | ||||
| 1-10 | 14(14.7%) | 0(0%) | 14(13.7%) | 0.525 |
| 11-20 | 53(55.8%) | 5(71.4%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 21(22.1%) | 1(14.3%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 4(4.2%) | 1(14.3%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 3(3.2%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| LNP | ||||
| 0 | 65(68.4%) | 0(0%) | 65(63.7%) | <0.001** |
| 1-2 | 19(20%) | 3(42.9%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 3-5 | 9(9.5%) | 2(28.6%) | 11(10.8%) | |
| >5 | 2(2.1%) | 2(28.6%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| Total | 95(100%) | 7(100%) | 102(100%) | |
The correlation between LNY and LNP and circumferential resection margin involvement (CRMI) was analyzed (Table 6). There was no significant correlation between stapler doughnuts and degree of differentiation with LNY (p=1) and LNP (p=0.60). There was no significant correlation between the degree of differentiation with LNY (p=0.28) and LNP (p=0.29). There was no statistically significant correlation between the LNY and CRMI. However, the correlation between CRMI and LNP was statistically significant (p=0.039).
Table 6. Correlation between LNY and LNP with CRMI.
** Statistically significant
CRMI: Circumferential resection margin involvement
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | CRM Involvement (CRMI) | Total | ||
| No | Yes | |||
| LNY | ||||
| 1-10 | 14(13.9%) | 0(0%) | 14(13.7%) | 1.000 |
| 11-20 | 57(56.4%) | 1(100%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 22(21.8%) | 0(0%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 5(5%) | 0(0%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 3(3%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| LNP | ||||
| 0 | 65(64.4%) | 0(0%) | 65(63.7%) | 0.039** |
| 1-2 | 22(21.8%) | 0(0%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 3-5 | 11(10.9%) | 0(0%) | 11(10.8%) | |
| >5 | 3(3%) | 1(100%) | 4(3.9%) | |
| Total | 101(100%) | 1(100%) | 102(100%) | |
The operating surgeon's consultant experience (CE) was classified as less than 10 years and 10 or more years. There was no statistical significance between consultant experience and LNY (Table 7).
Table 7. Correlation between LNY and LNP with CE.
LNY: Lymph node yield
LNP: Lymph node positivity
| Variables | Consultant Experience (CE) | Total | P-Value | |
| <10 Years | >=10 Years | |||
| LNY | ||||
| 1-10 | 10(14.3%) | 4(12.5%) | 14(13.7%) | 0.568 |
| 11-20 | 36(51.4%) | 22(68.8%) | 58(56.9%) | |
| 21-30 | 17(24.3%) | 5(15.6%) | 22(21.6%) | |
| 31-40 | 4(5.7%) | 1(3.1%) | 5(4.9%) | |
| 41-50 | 3(4.3%) | 0(0%) | 3(2.9%) | |
| Total | 70(100%) | 32(100%) | 102(100%) | |
Discussion
This study represents the demographic and oncological outcomes for descending, sigmoid, rectosigmoid, and rectal cancers at a single institution in the east of England. Critical prognostic factors after colorectal cancer resection are the LNY and LNP. Not only are LNY and LNP important for accurate staging and quality of surgical intervention, but they also have prognostic value in guiding the further management of the patients [12, 13]. A retrospective study [14] showed a statistically significant increase in LNY between 1997 and 2013. The cause is multifactorial, with the main one being increased awareness among surgeons about the significance of LNY. No difference was found in LNY between LS and OS. However, Puckett et al. [15] study showed that an open operative approach, when compared to the laparoscopic approach, was associated with 15% greater odds of retrieval of >12 LNs (OR 1.148; 95% CI (1.035-1.272); p = 0.008).
Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI, and PI. The results are comparable to a study by Balbaa et al. [16], which showed that a statistically significant correlation exists between CRMI and LNP (p=0.001), and VI (p=0.021) and PNI (p=0.04). There was no significant association between the T stage and LNY and LNP in our study. However, some previous studies have shown a direct correlation between the T stage and LNY [17-20]. Young age, reported to be associated with LNY [21,22], was not found in our study. In 2011, Rivard and Hochman [23] claimed no statistically significant difference between the LNY during laparoscopic versus open surgery (17.4 vs. 18.5; P=0.5920). Widmar et al. [24] hypothesized that robotic surgery would lead to higher LNY when compared to LS and OS with its increased dexterity and visualization. However, this study showed no statistical significance between LS and OS with LNY and LNP. We point out that our study did not include robotic procedures.
Dutch registry analysis with over 17000 patients studied suggested that LNY ≥ 12 is significantly associated with age, pT stage, tumor subsite, and priority of surgery. They hypothesize that a significant increase in the LNY over the period of the study was observed, probably reflecting the effect of national programs initiated by the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group [25]. Our study is limited to a single institution and found no significance between LNY with age, the urgency of operation, type of operation, or tumor subsite. Rivard and Hochman [23] found that the number of lymph nodes harvested decreased with increasing ASA grade and neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Our study did not investigate that aspect.
The number of lymph nodes recovered from resection specimens is dependent on several factors, such as surgical technique, tumor location, and length of bowel resected [26]. It is mainly dependent on the diligence and skill of the pathologist [27]. There is sizeable variation between different pathology laboratories about the number of lymph nodes examined histologically, as found in a Dutch nationwide study [28]. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level is controversial. In this study, the LNY ranged between 1 and 43 nodes with a median (IQR): 17(8). It did not correlate with the type of surgery or consultant experience. It may be appropriate that guidance be revised to a higher number, leading to a higher LNP [29]. Evans et al. [30] support the argument that with a higher proportion of cases classified as LNP, cases rise to 36 nodes/patient. These findings need to be looked at with caution because higher LNY observed may be a consequence of the severe disease, rather than patients with lower LN yields having missed nodal metastases [30].
Conclusions
LNY and LNP are important prognostic indexes in colorectal cancer. Patient age, tumor location, the urgency of surgery, and consultant experience did not significantly impact the LNY in this study. Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI, and PI comparable to previously published literature. This is useful to have in perioperative planning and discussion. A few studies published suggest that LNY in laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery. Contrary to these studies, we found no statistical significance between LS vs. OS and LNY. A meticulous operation following the embryonic planes of dissection irrespective of the access will yield better results as our study suggests. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level is controversial. LNY depends on several factors such as severity of disease, neoadjuvant therapy, pathologist's skill and tumor location. Attributing LNY to surgical technique or access alone would be an oversimplification.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their families for their love and support.
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
- 1.Sex- and gender-specific disparities in colorectal cancer risk. Kim SE, Paik HY, Yoon H, Lee JE, Kim N, Sung MK. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:5167–5175. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i17.5167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Stewart B, Wild C. World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; [ Oct; 2021 ]. 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cancer Research UK. Bowel cancer statistics. [ Oct; 2021 ];http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer 2021
- 4.Enigmatic sex disparities in cancer incidence. Edgren G, Liang L, Adami HO, Chang ET. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27:187–196. doi: 10.1007/s10654-011-9647-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gender differences in colorectal cancer: implications for age at initiation of screening. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Haug U. https://www.nature.com/articles/6603628. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:828–831. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM. Edge SB, Compton CC. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–1474. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Importance of metastatic lymph node ratio in non-metastatic, lymph node-invaded colon cancer: a clinical trial. Isik A, Peker K, Firat D, et al. https://www.medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/890804. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1369–1375. doi: 10.12659/MSM.890804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Metastatic lymph node ratio (mLNR) is a useful parameter in the prognosis of colorectal cancer; a meta-analysis for the prognostic role of mLNR. Pyo JS, Kim JH, Lee SY, Baek TH, Kang DW. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55:673. doi: 10.3390/medicina55100673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Prognosis impact of the lymph node ratio in patients with colon adenocarcinoma: a single-centre experience. Ramos-Esquivel A, Juárez M, González I, Porras J, Rodriguez L. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2014;45:133–136. doi: 10.1007/s12029-013-9576-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pathological evaluation of mesocolic resection quality and ex vivo methylene blue injection: what is the impact on lymph node harvest after colon resection for cancer? Frasson M, Faus C, Garcia-Granero A, et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:197–204. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823bd9c1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lymph node hypoplasia is associated with adverse outcomes in node-negative colon cancer using advanced lymph node dissection methods. Mayr P, Aumann G, Schaller T, Schenkirsch G, Anthuber M, Märkl B. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401:181–188. doi: 10.1007/s00423-016-1377-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lymph node harvest in colon and rectal cancer: current considerations. McDonald JR, Renehan AG, O'Dwyer ST, Haboubi NY. https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v4/i1/9.htm. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4:9–19. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i1.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Colorectal cancer and lymph nodes: the obsession with the number 12. Destri GL, Di Carlo I, Scilletta R, Scilletta B, Puleo S. https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i8/1951.htm. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:1951–1960. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i8.1951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Surgery along the embryological planes for colon cancer: a systematic review of complete mesocolic excision. Gouvas N, Agalianos C, Papaparaskeva K, Perrakis A, Hohenberger W, Xynos E. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:1577–1594. doi: 10.1007/s00384-016-2626-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Laparoscopic colectomies associated with decreased retrieval of 12 or more lymph nodes compared to open in elective colon cancer surgery. Puckett Y, Mitchell D, Pham T. https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/968-laparoscopic-colectomies-associated-with-decreased-retrieval-of-12-or-more-lymph-nodes-compared-to-open-in-elective-colon-cancer-surgery. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019;13:968. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Predictive factors of positive circumferential and longitudinal margins in early T3 colorectal cancer resection. Balbaa MA, Elkady N, Abdelrahman EM. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijso/2020/6789709/ Int J Surg Oncol. 2020;2020:6789709. doi: 10.1155/2020/6789709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Factors related to lymph node harvest: does a recovery of more than 12 improve the outcome of colorectal cancer? Moro-Valdezate D, Pla-Martí V, Martín-Arévalo J, Belenguer-Rodrigo J, Aragó-Chofre P, Ruiz-Carmona MD, Checa-Ayet F. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:1257–1266. doi: 10.1111/codi.12424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.The impact of surgeon and pathologist on lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer and its impact on survival for patients with Dukes' stage B disease. Evans MD, Barton K, Rees A, Stamatakis JD, Karandikar SS. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:157–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01225.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lymph node retrieval in rectal cancer is dependent on many factors—the role of the tumor the patient, the surgeon, the radiotherapist and the pathologist. Mekenkamp LJM, van Krieken JHJM, Marijnen CAM, et al. https://journals.lww.com/ajsp/Abstract/2009/10000/Lymph_Node_Retrieval_in_Rectal_Cancer_is_Dependent.14.aspx. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1547–1553. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181b2e01f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Clinicopathologic factors associated with lymph node retrieval in resectable colon cancer: a veterans' affairs central cancer registry (VACCR) database analysis. Gonsalves WI, Kanuri S, Tashi T, et al. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:667–671. doi: 10.1002/jso.21886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lymph node evaluation and long-term survival in stage II and stage III colon cancer: a national study. Vather R, Sammour T, Kahokehr A, et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:585–593. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0265-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Adequate lymph node recovery improves survival in colorectal cancer patients. Onitilo AA, Stankowski RV, Engel JM, Doi SA. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:828–834. doi: 10.1002/jso.23332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Equivalency of lymph node harvest in laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer procedures: an early surgeon's perspective. Rivard JD, Hochman DJ. https://journals.lww.com/surgical-laparoscopy/Abstract/2011/02000/Equivalency_of_Lymph_Node_Harvest_in_Laparoscopic.3.aspx. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21:14–16. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31820651b3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lymph node yield in right colectomy for cancer: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Widmar M, Keskin M, Strombom P, et al. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:888–894. doi: 10.1111/codi.13786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.A high lymph node yield in colon cancer is associated with age, tumour stage, tumour sub-site and priority of surgery. Results from a prospective national cohort study. Lykke J, Jess P, Roikjær O. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:1299–1305. doi: 10.1007/s00384-016-2599-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Number of lymph nodes examined and associated clinicopathologic factors in colorectal carcinoma. Shen SS, Haupt BX, Ro JY, Zhu J, Bailey HR, Schwartz MR. https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/133/5/781/460766/Number-of-Lymph-Nodes-Examined-and-Associated. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:781–786. doi: 10.5858/133.5.781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Review of histopathological and molecular prognostic features in colorectal cancer. Marzouk O, Schofield J. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/3/2/2767. Cancers (Basel) 2011;3:2767–2810. doi: 10.3390/cancers3022767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Large variation between hospitals and pathology laboratories in lymph node evaluation in colon cancer and its impact on survival, a nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands. Elferink MA, Siesling S, Visser O, Rutten HJ, van Krieken JH, Tollenaar RA, Lemmens VE. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:110–117. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.A national study on lymph node retrieval in resectional surgery for colorectal cancer. Tekkis PP, Smith JJ, Heriot AG, Darzi AW, Thompson MR, Stamatakis JD. https://journals.lww.com/dcrjournal/Abstract/2006/49110/A_National_Study_on_Lymph_Node_Retrieval_in.2.aspx. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1673–1683. doi: 10.1007/s10350-006-0691-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Same surgeon: different centre equals differing lymph node harvest following colorectal cancer resection. Evans MD, Robinson S, Badiani S, Rees A, Stamatakis JD, Karandikar SS, Langman G. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:406517. doi: 10.1155/2011/406517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]