Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24643761›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2014

The prognostic value of lymph node ratio and updated TNM classification in rectal cancer patients with adequate versus inadequate lymph node dissection.

T Junginger, U Goenner, A Lollert, D Hollemann, M Berres, M Blettner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

T JungingerDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany, junginger@uni-mainz.de.
U Goenner
A Lollert
D Hollemann
M Berres
M Blettner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to clarify whether the lymph node ratio (LNR) is superior to the updated TNM classification regarding the prognosis of stage III rectal cancer patients who have not undergone neoadjuvant therapy. The TNM system is based on the absolute number of lymph nodes involved, and the LNR takes into account involved and examined nodes.

methodsIn 237 patients with stage III rectal cancer, we evaluated prognostic factors for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and risk of distant metastases (DM) using the Kaplan-Meier method, with patients divided based on adequate versus inadequate lymph node dissection (≥12 vs. <12 lymph nodes examined). The updated TNM divides patients into four groups (1, 2-3, 4-6, and ≥7 involved nodes), while LNR divides patients into quartiles. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed.

resultsAmong patients with adequate lymph node dissection, the distributions within the two systems were in agreement in 141/178 (79.2 %, kappa 0.721), and the predictive values for OS, DFS, and DM were similar. In patients with inadequate lymph node dissection, the classifications of both systems were concordant in only 13/59 (22 %, kappa 0.021). The pN system significantly under-staged patients, while the LNR classification was a better predictor of OS, DFS, and DM.

conclusionsIn patients with adequate lymph node dissection, LNR staging does not add substantial information to the predictions of updated TNM lymph node staging. However, in patients with inadequate lymph node harvesting, the LNR compensates for the under-staging of the TNM classification and provides a better estimation of prognosis than the updated TNM system.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsRectal NeoplasmsSurvival Rate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.