scholarly journals High-risk group of upper and middle mediastinal lymph node metastasis in patients with esophagogastric junction carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 419-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Yura ◽  
Hiroya Takeuchi ◽  
Kazumasa Fukuda ◽  
Rieko Nakamura ◽  
Koichi Suda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Node Metastasis ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction Carcinoma

Mediastinal lymph node metastasis and recurrence in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 157 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukinori Kurokawa ◽  
Naoki Hiki ◽  
Takaki Yoshikawa ◽  
Kentaro Kishi ◽  
Yuichi Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Node Metastasis

Risk factor of mediastinal lymph node metastasis of Siewert type I and II esophagogastric junction carcinomas

2020 ◽  
Vol 405 (8) ◽  
pp. 1101-1109
Author(s):  
Noriyuki Nishiwaki ◽  
Kazuhiro Noma ◽  
Tatsuo Matsuda ◽  
Naoaki Maeda ◽  
Shunsuke Tanabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node ◽  
Type I ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Siewert Type ◽  
Node Metastasis

Comparison of mediastinal lymph node metastases from adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction versus lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with involvement of the esophagogastric junction

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Mine ◽  
M Watanabe ◽  
K Kumagai ◽  
A Okamura ◽  
M Yuda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node ◽  
Nodal Metastasis ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Poor Survival ◽  
Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Node Metastasis

SUMMARY The distribution of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) remains unclear. Additionally, the distribution of nodal mediastinal metastasis from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lower esophagus with involvement of the esophagogastric junction remains unclear, given the very limited number of these patients. In this retrospective review, we compared the outcomes of radical lymphadenectomy of the mediastinum, including upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy, between patients with AEG and those with SCC. From 2005 to 2017, 69 consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy via right thoracotomy or minimally invasive esophagectomy for a Siewert type I or II tumor with esophageal invasion ≥3 cm. We analyzed the incidences of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in this group relative to those of 73 patients with SCC with involvement of the esophagogastric junction who consecutively underwent esophagectomy during the same period. Mediastinal lymph node metastasis was seen in 26 of 69 patients with AEG (38%), with upper, middle, lower mediastinal nodal metastasis instances of 20%, 17%, and 23%, respectively. Mediastinal lymph node metastasis was seen in 23 of 73 patients with SCC (32%), with upper, middle, lower mediastinal nodal metastasis instances of 12%, 16%, and 19%, respectively. This mediastinal lymph nodal metastasis distribution did not statistically differ between patients with AEG and those with SCC. The relapse-free survival outcomes were poor for patients with clinical (P < 0.01) or pathological (P < 0.01) nodal metastasis of the mediastinum with AEG. In contrast, patients with clinical or pathological mediastinal nodal metastases of SCC did not have extremely poor survival outcomes, compared to patients with AEG. Despite the limited dataset available for analysis, patients with AEG and those with SCC might exhibit similar incidences and distribution of mediastinal lymph node metastasis. However, the clinical or pathological metastasis of AEG to the mediastinum was associated with poor survival outcomes, even if radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy including the upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy was performed.

A validation study of a scoring system to estimate the risk of lymph node metastasis for patients with endometrial carcinoma for tailoring the indication of lymphadenectomy

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5040-5040
Author(s):  
Y. Todo ◽  
Y. Ebina ◽  
H. Watari ◽  
N. Sakuragi
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Tumor Grade ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Node Metastasis

5040 Background: The present standard treatment for cases with endometrial cancer is surgical staging including lymphadenectomy. Elimination of lymphadenectomy will not be approved of unless strict condition are met. Our aim is to verify whether a preoperative scoring system to estimate the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in endometrial carcinoma is clinically useful for tailoring the indication of lymphadenectomy. Methods: This study was carried out on 211 patients with endometrial carcinoma for whom volume index, serum CA125 level, tumor grade/histology were preoperatively confirmed. LNM score was set up using these three risk factors as reported in our previous study (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003). We analyzed whether these factors remain still valid in a different cohort of patients. Based on the LNM score before a validation study was started, the estimated rate of lymph node metastasis (para-aortic lymph node metastasis) in a low risk group was 3.4% (0.0%), an intermediate group 7.7% (5.8%), a high risk group 44.4% (30.6%) and an extremely high risk group 70.0% (50.0%). Results: Volume index, serum CA125 level, and tumor grade/histology, were found to be independent risk factors for LNM in the cohort of this validation study. The actual rate of lymph node metastasis (para-aortic lymph node metastasis) in a low risk group was 3.2% (1.0%), an intermediate group 15.3% (11.9%), a high risk group 30.2% (23.8%) and an extremely high risk group 78.6% (57.1%). Conclusions: LNM frequencies increased in proportion to the impact of the LNM score and the actual rate of lymph node metastasis for each score was quite consistent with the estimated rate of lymph node metastasis.Our LNM score for patients with endometrial carcinoma is useful. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Development and validation of a six-gene signature for predicting prognosis in prostate cancer patients with lymph node metastasis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17524-e17524
Author(s):  
Jinan Guo ◽  
Wenzhuan Xie ◽  
Mengli Huang ◽  
Chan Gao
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lymph Node Metastasis ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Gene Signature ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Node Metastasis

e17524 Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node metastasis (LNM) always exhibit poor clinical outcomes. A gene signature that could predict survival in these patients would allow for earlier detection of mortality risk and will also guide individualized therapy. Methods: A prediction model was developed using a public cohort consisting of 623 patients with clinicopathologically confirmed PCa. Data were gathered from cBioPortal and UCSC Xena. Genes expressed differentially in patients with lymph node metastasis versus those without lymph node metastasis were identified. Uni-variate Cox regression analysis and LASSO Cox regression were applied to build a prediction model. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the prognostic capacity of the model, followed by external validation using the MSKCC dataset from cBioPortal. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) was performed to further understand the underlying molecular mechanisms. Results: We identified a six-gene signature (covering GSDMB, SSTR1, MX1, CCBE1, MYBPC1, and FAM3D) that could effectively identify a high-risk subset of PCa patients. ROC analysis indicated that the signature had a good performance (AUC > 0.7) in survival prediction in both the training and the testing/validation cohorts. Cox regression analysis showed that the six-gene signature could independently predict disease-free survival (DFS) as well, although with lower predictive power. Subgroup analyses showed that signature-based risk score may serve as a promising marker to predict DFS in different subgroups, including stage T2 (HR = 0.12, p < 0.001), stage T3 (HR = 0.29, p < 0.001), TP53-wild-type (HR = 0.22, p < 0.001), TP53-mutated (HR = 0.07, p < 0001), AR pathways-wild-type (HR = 0.2, p < 0.001) and AR pathways-mutated(HR = 0.16, p = 0.0419). The performance of the six-gene signature in LNM+ was stable for stratifying the patients according to risk of deatch (HR = 0.23, p = 0.0333). Moreover, GSEA revealed distinct pathway enrichment features in the different risk groups, where pathways related to DNA repair were more prominently enriched in the high-risk group while the low-risk group had higher enrichment of androgen response. Conclusions: We developed a robust six-gene signature that can effectively classify PCa patients into groups with low- and high-risk group, which may help select high-risk patients who require more aggressive adjuvant target therapy or immune therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document