ArticleScientific reports2026
Tailored minimum examined lymph node threshold for colon cancer from large multi database analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) for colon cancer (CC) remains controversial. This study aims to identify patient-specific factors associated with the number of ELNs retrieved in CC patients undergoing hemicolectomy and to explore the potential for establishing a minimum ELNs threshold based on patient characteristics. We retrospectively analyzed data on patients with stage I-III CC from two sources: the Chinese Multi-Institutional Registry (CMIR, N = 10,367; 2010–2018) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End. Results (SEER) database (N = 121,216; 2010–2018). Logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient-specific factors associated with ELN counts. Eight distinct patient cohorts were constructed, and the relationship between ELNs and overall survival (OS) was assessed using restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves and Kaplan-Meier curves. This study was registered with the ChiCT Registry (ChiCTR2400084767). The median ELN count was 16 (IQR 12–22) in the SEER cohort and 15 (IQR 12–20) in the Chinese cohort. Age, tumor size, and location emerged as key factors influencing ELN numbers. Notably, the optimal ELN thresholds for optimal survival across all eight cohorts ranged from 14 to 17, exceeding the current recommendation of 12. Exceeding these cohort-specific thresholds was associated with significantly improved OS in both databases (all P < 0.001). The detailed comparison of ELN-related statistics between the two databases is shown in Supplementary Table X. The present study reveals heterogeneity in the minimum ELN requirements across different patient cohorts with CC. Further prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these tailored thresholds and inform guideline updates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.