World journal of surgical oncology · 2022
Mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for mid-low rectal cancer with lateral lymph node metastasis: efficacy and prognostic analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Sicheng, Jiang Yujuan, Liang Jianwei, Liu Qian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lateral pelvic lymph node (LPN) dissection (LPND) for rectal cancer patients with LPN metastasis (LPNM) and investigate the impact of LPNM on prognosis.
METHODS: One hundred twenty-five matched pairs were selected and divided into the total mesorectal excision (TME) group and TME + LPND group for evaluation after propensity matching.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the 3-year local recurrence rate between the TME group and the TME + LPND group (10.7% vs 8.8%, P = 0.817); however, the rate of distant metastasis after TME + LPND was significantly higher (15.2% vs 7.2%, P = 0.044). When the mesorectal LN and LPN groups were subdivided, 3-year RFS was not significantly different between the internal LPN and N2 groups (57.1% vs. 55.3%, P = 0.613). There was no significant difference in RFS between the external group and the stage IV group (49.1% vs. 22.5%, P = 0.302), but RFS in the former group was significantly worse than that in the N2 group (49.1% vs. 55.3%, P = 0.044).
CONCLUSION: Although patients with suspected LPNM can achieve satisfactory local control after TME + LPND, systemic metastases are more likely to develop after surgery. Patients limited to internal iliac and obturator LN metastasis appear to achieve a survival benefit from LPND and can be regarded as regional LN metastasis. However, patients with LPNM in the external and common iliac LN metastasis have a poor prognosis that is significantly worse than that of N2 and slightly better than that of stage IV, and LPND should be carefully selected.
METHODS: One hundred twenty-five matched pairs were selected and divided into the total mesorectal excision (TME) group and TME + LPND group for evaluation after propensity matching.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the 3-year local recurrence rate between the TME group and the TME + LPND group (10.7% vs 8.8%, P = 0.817); however, the rate of distant metastasis after TME + LPND was significantly higher (15.2% vs 7.2%, P = 0.044). When the mesorectal LN and LPN groups were subdivided, 3-year RFS was not significantly different between the internal LPN and N2 groups (57.1% vs. 55.3%, P = 0.613). There was no significant difference in RFS between the external group and the stage IV group (49.1% vs. 22.5%, P = 0.302), but RFS in the former group was significantly worse than that in the N2 group (49.1% vs. 55.3%, P = 0.044).
CONCLUSION: Although patients with suspected LPNM can achieve satisfactory local control after TME + LPND, systemic metastases are more likely to develop after surgery. Patients limited to internal iliac and obturator LN metastasis appear to achieve a survival benefit from LPND and can be regarded as regional LN metastasis. However, patients with LPNM in the external and common iliac LN metastasis have a poor prognosis that is significantly worse than that of N2 and slightly better than that of stage IV, and LPND should be carefully selected.