Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30096142›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2018

The prognostic significance of lymph node size in node-positive colon cancer.

Philipp Schrembs, Benedikt Martin, Matthias Anthuber, Gerhard Schenkirsch, Bruno Märkl

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis in Colon Cancer patients using machine learning: a pilot study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philipp SchrembsInstitute of Pathology, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0711-779X
Benedikt MartinInstitute of Pathology, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Matthias AnthuberDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Gerhard SchenkirschClinical and Population-Based Cancer Registry, Augsburg, Germany.
Bruno MärklInstitute of Pathology, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7704-850X
University Hospital Augsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo (i) show the outcome benefits of enlarged lymph nodes in node-positive colon cancer cases, as it was shown previously in negative node cases; (ii) disprove the stage migration theory and (iii) list the factors affecting lymph node size and yield.

methodsA retrospective study including 234 node-positive colon cancer cases was scheduled and performed. All recovered lymph nodes (6969) from 234 cases were microscopically examined in regard to (a) lymph node size (b) presence of metastasis (c) extent of intra-nodal metastasis. On the basis of resulting data, a statistical analysis was performed.

resultsMetastases occurred in all size categories, though more often in larger lymph nodes. Fifty-one percent of all metastasised nodes were 2 to 6 mm in size. Approximately half of all nodes >10 mm were microscopically free of cancer. Cases with a small lymph node metastasis to lymph node size ratio (MSR) had a better prognosis than others: 85 months (95% CI: 72-97) vs. 67 months (95% CI: 47-88), p <0.001 (mean, overall survival). To differentiate between cases with the same ratio but different absolute lymph nodes sizes, we divided the cases into two groups that differed in their number of moderate to large lymph nodes. The group with more moderate to large lymph nodes showed a clear outcome benefit: 104 months (95% CI: 86-122) vs. 66 months (95% CI: 54-77), p = 0.014 (mean, overall survival).

conclusionsMetastasised lymph nodes affect all size categories, and large lymph nodes are not always metastasised. The combination of enlarged lymph nodes and a small lymph node metastasis to lymph node size ratio (MSR) is associated with a better prognosis than others. When enlarged lymph nodes were considered as surrogate markers of an effective local immune response due to nodal hyperplasia, the immune system could be seen as the confounder affecting both lymph node size and prognosis. Our results are pointing in this direction and, along with other reasons, are challenging the stage migration theory.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColonic NeoplasmsDNA-Binding ProteinsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2Multivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisDNA-Binding ProteinsG-T mismatch-binding proteinMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2

Identifiers

PMID30096142
PMCPMC6086396
OpenAlexW2886380461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.