Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31425290›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2021

Significance of Examined Lymph Node Number in Accurate Staging and Long-term Survival in Resected Stage I-II Pancreatic Cancer-More is Better? A Large International Population-based Cohort Study.

Lei Huang, Lina Jansen, Yesilda Balavarca, Lydia van der Geest, Valery Lemmens, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Hjalmar C van Santvoort, Robert Grützmann, Marc G Besselink, Petra Schrotz-King and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Lei HuangDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Lina JansenDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Yesilda BalavarcaDivision of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Lydia van der GeestNetherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Valery LemmensNetherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hjalmar C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwe- gein, The Netherlands.
Robert GrützmannDepartment of Surgery, Friedrich-Alex- ander-University Erlangen-Nurnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Marc G BesselinkDutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG), Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petra Schrotz-KingDivision of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Hermann BrennerDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
German Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DENetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NLFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis large international cohort study aimed to investigate the associations of examined lymph node (ELN) number with accurate staging and long-term survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PaC) and to robustly determine the minimal and optimal ELN thresholds. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: ELN number is an important quality metric in cancer care. The recommended minimal ELN number in PaC to accurately stage cancer varies greatly across guidelines, and the optimal number especially to adequately stratify patient survival has not yet been established.

methodsPopulation-based data on patients with stage I to II PaC resected in 2003 to 2015 from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 Program and Netherlands National Cancer Registry (NCR) were analyzed. Associations of ELN number with stage migration and survival were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. The series of odds ratios (ORs) for negative-to-positive node stage migration and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival with more ELNs were fitted using a LOWESS smoother, and structural breakpoints were determined by Chow test.

resultsOverall 16,241 patients were analyzed. With increasing ELN number, both cohorts exhibited significant proportional increases from nodenegative to node-positive disease [ORSEER-18 = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.05; ORNCR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.08-1.12] and serial improvements in survival (HRSEER-18 = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.98-0.99; HRNCR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99) per additional ELN after controlling for confounders. Associations for stage migration and survival remained significant in most stratifications by patient, tumor, and treatment factors. Cut-point analyses suggested a minimal threshold ELN number of 11 and an optimal number of 19, which were validated both internally in the derivative US cohort and externally in the Dutch cohort with the ability to well discriminate different probabilities of both survival and stage migration.

conclusionsIn stage I to II PaC, more ELNs are associated with more precise nodal staging, which might largely explain the survival association. Our observational study does not suggest causality, and does not encourage more extended lymphadenectomy before further randomized evidence is obtained. Our results robustly conclude 11 ELNs as the minimal and suggest 19 ELNs as the optimal cut-points, for evaluating quality of lymph node examination and possibly for stratifying postoperative prognosis.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisAdenocarcinomaCohort StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsPancreatic NeoplasmsSurvival RateUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31425290
OpenAlexW2968070205

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.