A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical significance of metastatic tumor deposit foci in rectal cancer in the lateral pelvic lymph node area. | LitMetric

Background: Although previous studies have demonstrated that tumor deposits (TDs) are associated with worse prognosis in colon cancer, their clinical significance in rectal cancer has not been fully elucidated, especially in the lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) area. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of TDs, focusing on the number of metastatic foci, including lymph node metastases (LNMs) and TDs, in the LPLN area.

Methods: This retrospective study involved 226 consecutive patients with cStage II/III low rectal cancer who underwent LPLN dissection. Metastatic foci, including LNM and TD, in the LPLN area were defined as lateral pelvic metastases (LP-M) and were evaluated according to LP-M status: presence (absence vs. presence), histopathological classification (LNM vs. TD), and number (one to three vs. four or more). We evaluated the relapse-free survival of each model and compared them using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell's concordance index (c-index).

Results: Forty-nine of 226 patients (22%) had LP-M, and 15 patients (7%) had TDs. The median number of LP-M per patient was one (range, 1-9). The best risk stratification power was observed for number (AIC, 758; c-index, 0.668) compared with presence (AIC, 759; c-index, 0.665) and histopathological classification (AIC, 761; c-index, 0.664). The number of LP-M was an independent prognostic factor for both relapse-free and overall survival, and was significantly associated with cumulative local recurrence.

Conclusion: The number of metastatic foci, including LNMs and TDs, in the LPLN area is useful for risk stratification of patients with low rectal cancer.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10147-023-02391-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectal cancer
16
clinical significance
12
lateral pelvic
12
lymph node
12
lpln area
12
metastatic foci
12
foci including
12
pelvic lymph
8
number metastatic
8
lnms tds
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!