Objective To identify factors that influence the total and negative lymph node counts in colorectal cancer resection specimens independent of pathologists and surgeons.
Design We used multivariate negative binomial regression. Covariates included age, sex, body mass index, family history of colorectal carcinoma, year of diagnosis, hospital setting, tumor location, resected colorectal length (specimen length), tumor size, circumferential growth, TNM stage, lymphocytic reactions and other pathological features, and tumor molecular features (microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype, long interspersed nucleotide element 1 [LINE-1] methylation, and BRAF, KRAS, and PIK3CA mutations).
Setting Two US nationwide prospective cohort studies.
Patients Patients with rectal and colon cancer (N = 918).
Main Outcome Measures The negative and total node counts (continuous).
Results Specimen length, tumor size, ascending colon location, T3N0M0 stage, and year of diagnosis were positively associated with the negative node count (all P ≤ .002). Mutation of KRAS might also be positively associated with the negative node count (P = .03; borderline significance considering multiple hypothesis testing). Among node-negative (stages I and II) cases, specimen length, tumor size, and ascending colon location remained significantly associated with the node count (all P ≤ .002), and PIK3CA and KRAS mutations might also be positively associated (P = .03 and P = .049, respectively, with borderline significance).
Conclusions This molecular pathological epidemiology study shows that specimen length, tumor size, tumor location, TNM stage, and year of diagnosis are operator-independent predictors of the lymph node count. These crucial variables should be examined in any future evaluation of the adequacy of lymph node harvest and nodal staging when devising individualized treatment plans for patients with colorectal cancer.
The presence of lymph node metastasis has important implications in the prognosis and treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.1 Observational studies indicate that the number of lymph nodes assessed by pathological examination (in particular, the negative node count) is associated with longer survival in colorectal cancer.2 Thus, along with disease stage and tumor molecular features, the node count is often used for treatment decision making by oncologists. However, the optimal number of lymph nodes that must be assessed remains controversial.2-5 Although the average number of lymph nodes evaluated for colorectal cancer has increased in the past decade, it remains uncertain how the node count is influenced by demographic, clinical, and tumor molecular factors.6,7
Quiz Ref IDThe number of recovered lymph nodes may be influenced not only by surgeons and pathologists but also by factors independent of surgeons and pathologists. Those “operator-independent” factors include tumor location, disease stage, tumor size, host immune response,8 and tumor molecular features, such as microsatellite instability (MSI) and the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP).9 Molecular features of colorectal cancer and host immune response have been associated with the node count.9,10 Previous studies have examined the relationship between the recovered node count and various demographic and clinical features in population-based11-16 and hospital-based17-27 studies, but all those studies11-26,28,29 lacked comprehensive data on specimen length, tumor size, host immune reaction to tumor, and tumor molecular features. Beyond surgeon- and pathologist-related (ie, operator) factors, it is important to identify patient-specific node count predictors (ie, clinical, pathological, or tumor molecular factors) to assess the adequacy of lymph node examination for each patient. To accomplish this aim, a comprehensive database of a large number of colorectal cancer cases with clinical, specimen, pathological, and molecular annotations is needed.
We therefore conducted this molecular pathological epidemiology8,30,31 study using a database of 918 colorectal cancer cases in 2 prospective cohort studies. Considering the overall distribution of the node count, we used negative binomial regression analysis to identify factors associated with the negative and total node counts. Because we used a US nationwide cohort database with clinical, specimen, pathological, and tumor molecular variables (including MSI, CIMP, and KRAS (HGNC 6407), BRAF (HGNC 1097), and PIK3CA (HGNC 8975) mutations), we could assess each node count predictor independent of operator (surgeon and pathologist) factors.
We used the databases of 2 prospective cohort studies: the Nurses' Health Study (consisting of 121 701 women who have been followed up since 1976) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (consisting of 51 529 men who have been followed up since 1986).32,33 Every 2 years, participants have been sent follow-up questionnaires to update information on potential risk factors and to identify newly diagnosed cancer in themselves and their first-degree relatives. For nonresponders, we searched the National Death Index to discover deaths and to ascertain the causes of death and any diagnosis of cancer. Study physicians reviewed medical records, including pathology reports, and recorded tumor location and pathological TNM (tumor-node-metastasis) stage, the positive and negative node counts,9 tumor size, circumferential growth along the bowel wall, and resected colorectal length (specimen length). We collected paraffin-embedded tissue blocks from hospitals where patients underwent tumor resections.33 We collected diagnostic biopsy specimens for patients with rectal cancer who received preoperative treatment to avoid artifacts or bias introduced by treatment. Based on the availability of data on the node count and tumor molecular features, we included a total of 918 colorectal cancer cases diagnosed up to 2006. Hospitals where our participants underwent colorectal resections were distributed throughout the United States (Figure 1). Informed consent was obtained from all study subjects. This study was approved by the Human Subjects Committees at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard School of Public Health.
Histopathological evaluations
Tissue blocks from all colorectal cancer cases were evaluated by a pathologist (S.O.). Tumor differentiation was categorized as poor vs well-moderate (≤50% vs >50% glandular areas). The presence and extent of mucinous and/or a signet ring cell component were recorded. Lymphocytic reaction patterns, such as peritumoral lymphocytic reaction and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, were examined as previously described.34 A subset of cases (n > 100) was reviewed by another pathologist (T.M.), and concordance was as follows: κ = 0.72 for tumor differentiation, Spearman r = 0.87 for the percentage of mucin, Spearman r = 0.65 for the percentage of signet ring cells, and Spearman r = 0.65 for the summation score of peritumoral reaction and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes.
Pyrosequencing of kras, braf, and pik3ca and msi analysis
Quiz Ref IDWe extracted DNA from each tumor, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis and pyrosequencing targeted for KRAS (codons 12 and 13),35BRAF (codon 600),36 and PIK3CA (exons 9 and 20)37 were performed. The MSI status was determined using D2S123, D5S346, D17S250, BAT25, BAT26, BAT40, D18S55, D18S56, D18S67, and D18S487.38,39Quiz Ref IDWe defined MSI-high as the presence of instability in 30% or more of the markers and microsatellite stability/MSI-low as instability in 0% to 29% of the markers.
Analyses of 2 types of methylation
Sodium bisulfite treatment on DNA and real-time PCR (MethyLight) assays were validated and performed.40 We quantified promoter methylation in 8 CIMP-specific markers (CACNA1G [HGNC 1394], CDKN2A [HGNC 1787], CRABP1 [HGNC 2338], IGF2 [HGNC 5466], MLH1 [HGNC 7127], NEUROG1 [HGNC 7764], RUNX3 [HGNC 10473], and SOCS1 [HGNC 19383]).38,41,42 We defined CIMP-high as 6 or more methylated markers and CIMP-low/0 as 0 to 5 methylated markers according to the previously established criteria.38 To accurately quantify relatively high long interspersed nucleotide element 1 (LINE-1) methylation levels, we used pyrosequencing.43,44
We used SAS software (version 9.1.3; SAS Institute, Inc) for statistical analysis. All P values were 2-sided. Because of multiple hypothesis testing, a P value for significance was adjusted conservatively by Bonferroni correction to .0023 (P = .05/22). The χ2 test was used to assess the association between categorical variables, and analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables across categories.
We adopted multivariate negative binomial regression analysis to assess predictors of the node count because the marginal distribution of the total or negative node count fit the gamma-Poisson–like distribution (Figure 2); overdispersion occurred with Poisson generalized linear models. The process of estimation was based on a negative binomial distribution that can be conceptualized as a mixture of a Poisson distribution and a gamma distribution.45 Variables initially included in a model were sex, age (continuous), prediagnosis body mass index (continuous), family history of colorectal cancer in any first-degree relative, year of diagnosis (continuous), hospital setting (academic vs nonacademic), tumor size (continuous), specimen length (continuous), circumferential growth (100% complete vs incomplete), tumor location and TNM stage (categorized as in Table 1 and Table 2), tumor differentiation (poor vs well-moderate), mucinous component (reported as a continuous percentage), signet ring cells (reported as a continuous percentage), peritumoral lymphocytic reaction and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (absent/minimal vs mild vs moderate vs marked; ordinal), MSI (MSI-high vs microsatellite stability/MSI-low), CIMP (CIMP-high vs CIMP-low/0), LINE-1 methylation (continuous), and KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA (mutations vs wild-type variants). A backward elimination with a threshold of P = .1 was performed to select variables in the final model except for TNM stage and tumor location, for which all categories were forced into the model. For cases with missing data in a covariate, we carried out 2 separate analyses: the first analysis included all patients, with creation of a categorical indicator for missing responses (missing indicator method; the second analysis included all patients, with missing responses imputed (multiple imputation [MI]). The MI procedure in SAS was used to perform 20 imputations of all variables with missing cases by using the regression method. The results from the regression analysis were then appropriately combined by using the MIANALYZE procedure.
Lymph node count in colorectal cancer resection
The total node count showed a skewed (gamma-Poisson–like) distribution (Figure 2): range, 0 to 54; mean, 12.0; median, 10; and interquartile range, 6 to 16 nodes. The negative node count also showed a skewed (gamma-Poisson–like) distribution: range, 0 to 54; mean, 10.5; median, 8; and interquartile range, 4 to 15 nodes.
Node count and clinical, pathological, and molecular features
Tables 1 and 2 show the clinical, pathological, and molecular features of colorectal cancers according to quartiles of the negative or total node count. The negative and total node counts were both positively associated with specimen length, tumor size, ascending colon location, T3N0M0 stage, MSI status, and CIMP status (all P < .001).
Multivariate analysis for the node count
In a multivariate negative binomial regression model, factors independently associated with the negative node count included specimen length, tumor location, TNM stage, year of diagnosis, and tumor size (all P ≤ .002) (Table 3). In Table 3, for example, specimens with rectal cancer on average yielded a negative node count of approximately two-thirds (0.67) of that in specimens with ascending colon cancer after controlling for the effects of other variables. Quiz Ref IDA KRAS mutation appeared to be a predictor of the negative node count (P = .03), although multiple hypothesis testing should be considered and the finding confirmed by an independent data set.
Factors independently associated with the total node count included specimen length, tumor location, TNM stage, and tumor size after controlling for the effects of other variables (all P < .001) (Table 4). A KRAS mutation appeared to be a predictor of the total node count (P = .009), although multiple hypothesis testing should be considered.
Node count in node-negative (stages i and ii) colorectal cancer resections
In patients with stage I or II colorectal cancer, ascending colon tumor location, tumor size, and specimen length were positively associated with the node count after controlling for the effects of other variables (all P ≤ .002) (Table 5). Mutations of PIK3CA (P = .03) and KRAS (P = .049) also appeared to predict the node count, although multiple hypothesis testing should be considered.
We conducted this study to identify clinical, pathological, and tumor molecular variables that predict the node count in colorectal cancer resections independent of human operator factors (ie, surgeons and pathologists). We found that specimen length, tumor size, T3N0M0 stage, ascending colon tumor location, and year of diagnosis were positively associated with the negative node count. Mutation of KRAS might also be positively associated with the negative node count, but this finding should be confirmed by an independent data set. These results indicate that operator-independent variables influence the node count in colorectal resection and should be examined in any future study that assesses the adequacy of lymph node harvesting and staging.
Comprehensive assessment of clinical, pathological, and molecular features is important in cancer research.46-49 Previous studies have reported that the recovered node count is positively associated with specimen length,14,18,19,21-24 proximal colon cancer,13,18,19,25,28 larger tumor size,11,14,18,20 the number of vascular pedicles,50 and higher disease stage.17,18 However, those studies11,13,14,17-24,28 produced no data on host immune response to tumor or tumor molecular features despite the possible influence of immune reaction and tumor molecular variables on the node count.9 Previous studies that examined the relationship between MSI and the node count lacked specimen length and molecular variables besides MSI.51,52 In contrast to all previous studies that examined potential predictors of the node count,11,13,14,17-24,28 we have used a US nationwide cohort database with well-annotated clinical, specimen, pathological, and tumor molecular data, including MSI, CIMP, and KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, all of which are potential predictors of the node count.
With regard to the influence of medical care quality or socioeconomic status on the lymph node count,12,53 academic hospital status5,14,25 and the degree of practicing experience of the surgeons11,18 and pathologists11,13,17,18,54 have been associated with the node count (for review, see Storli et al55). However, all but three14,18,24 of those previous studies on medical care quality or socioeconomic status5,11,13,16,17,53,54 lacked data on specimen length.
Our ability to use the database of 2 US nationwide prospective cohort studies to assess operator-independent predictors of the node count provided advantages. First, cohort participants who developed cancer were treated at hospitals throughout the United States (Figure 1) and were more representative of colorectal cancer cases in the general US population than one might expect of patients in 1 to a few hospitals. Second, because of our study design, any particular surgeon or pathologist could not have influenced our results, increasing the generalizability of our findings. Third, our rich molecular pathological epidemiology8,30,31 database enabled us to simultaneously assess a number of variables and to adjust for potential confounding.
One weakness of our study is that participants of our cohort studies were US health professionals and predominantly non-Hispanic white individuals, thus constituting a rather homogeneous group, and the studies lacked other occupational and ethnic groups. One of the primary reasons for selecting health professionals as subjects in the cohort studies was that they have a good understanding of various diseases as well as of the value of the cohort studies, which increases the reliability and completeness of questionnaire-based follow-up and data collection. Second, we excluded a subset of cancer cases without available tumor tissue, which might cause bias. Nonetheless, the tumor specimen procurement rate has been 60% to 70% of attempts, and a previous study has shown that there is no substantial demographic or clinical difference between cases with and without tumor tissue analyzed.32
Our ultimate goal is to determine how many nodes must be harvested to attain optimal care when devising an individualized treatment plan in each case. To achieve this goal, we need to assemble an adequate database with prospective follow-up to record detailed outcome data, preferably in a trial setting. We do not have enough data now to recommend a specific number of nodes that should be examined for optimal patient care. Nonetheless, our unique data set, which has provided strong evidence of the effects of specimen length, tumor size, tumor location, and TNM stage on the node count, will likely serve as a guide for future trials.
Quiz Ref IDIn conclusion, our study has shown that specimen length, tumor size and location, and TNM stage are predictors of the lymph node count in colorectal cancer resections independent of operator (surgeon and pathologist) factors. In addition, some tumor molecular features, such as KRAS mutation, might influence the node count but must be confirmed by an independent data set. Our data suggest that these clinical, pathological, specimen, and molecular variables should be examined as crucial elements in any future evaluation of the adequacy of lymph node examination for patients with colorectal cancer.
Correspondence: Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, MS(Epidemiology), Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Molecular Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 450 Brookline Ave, Room JF-215C, Boston, MA 02215 (shuji_ogino@dfci.harvard.edu).
Accepted for Publication: January 30, 2012.
Published Online: April 16, 2012. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.353
Author Contributions: Drs Morikawa, Tanaka, Kuchiba, and Nosho contributed equally. Drs Tanaka and Ogino had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Swanson, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Acquisition of data: Morikawa, Nosho, Yamauchi, Chan, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Analysis and interpretation of data: Morikawa, Tanaka, Kuchiba, Hornick, Swanson, Chan, Meyerhardt, Huttenhower, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Drafting of the manuscript: Morikawa, Tanaka, Nosho, Yamauchi, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Morikawa, Kuchiba, Hornick, Swanson, Chan, Meyerhardt, Huttenhower, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Statistical analysis: Tanaka, Kuchiba, Nosho, Huttenhower, Schrag, and Fuchs, Obtained funding: Chan, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino. Administrative, technical, and material support: Morikawa, Fuchs, and Ogino. Study supervision: Swanson, Huttenhower, Schrag, Fuchs, and Ogino.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants P01 CA87969, P01 CA55075, P50 CA127003 (Dr Fuchs), R01 CA151993 (Dr Ogino), and R01 CA137178 (Dr Chan) from the National Institutes of Health; the Bennett Family Fund for Targeted Therapies Research; and the Entertainment Industry Foundation through the National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance.
Disclaimer: The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.
Role of the Sponsor: The funding agencies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication; or in the writing of the manuscript.
Additional Contributions: We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
1.Compton CC. Optimal pathologic staging: defining stage II disease.
Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(22, pt 2):6862s-6870s18006791
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2.Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Moyer VA. Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(6):433-44117374833
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 3.Hammond ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC,
et al; Cancer Committee and Conference Participants. College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV: solid tumor prognostic factors—which, how and so what? summary document and recommendations for implementation.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):958-96510888771
PubMedGoogle Scholar 4.Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A,
et al; National Cancer Institute Expert Panel. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(8):583-59611309435
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 5.Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Stewart AK,
et al. Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital report card.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(18):1310-131718780863
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 6.Parsons HM, Tuttle TM, Kuntz KM, Begun JW, McGovern PM, Virnig BA. Association between lymph node evaluation for colon cancer and node positivity over the past 20 years.
JAMA. 2011;306(10):1089-109721917579
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 7.Porter GA, Urquhart R, Bu J, Johnson P, Rayson D, Grunfeld E. Improving nodal harvest in colorectal cancer: so what [published online October 4, 2011]?
Ann Surg Oncol21969083
PubMedGoogle Scholar 8.Ogino S, Galon J, Fuchs CS, Dranoff G. Cancer immunology—analysis of host and tumor factors for personalized medicine.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(12):711-71921826083
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 9.Ogino S, Nosho K, Irahara N,
et al. Negative lymph node count is associated with survival of colorectal cancer patients, independent of tumoral molecular alterations and lymphocytic reaction.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(2):420-43319809407
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 10.George S, Primrose J, Talbot R,
et al; Wessex Colorectal Cancer Audit Working Group. Will Rogers revisited: prospective observational study of survival of 3592 patients with colorectal cancer according to number of nodes examined by pathologists.
Br J Cancer. 2006;95(7):841-84716969342
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 11.Morris EJ, Maughan NJ, Forman D, Quirke P. Identifying stage III colorectal cancer patients: the influence of the patient, surgeon, and pathologist.
J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(18):2573-257917577036
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 12.Wong SL, Ji H, Hollenbeck BK, Morris AM, Baser O, Birkmeyer JD. Hospital lymph node examination rates and survival after resection for colon cancer.
JAMA. 2007;298(18):2149-215418000198
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 13.Lemmens VE, van Lijnschoten I, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Rutten HJ, Verheij CD, Coebergh JW. Pathology practice patterns affect lymph node evaluation and outcome of colon cancer: a population-based study.
Ann Oncol. 2006;17(12):1803-180916971667
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 14.Wright FC, Law CH, Last L,
et al. Lymph node retrieval and assessment in stage II colorectal cancer: a population-based study.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(8):903-90914527909
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 15.Grote T, Hughes AH, Rimmer CC, Less DA, Abernethy AP.Multidisciplinary Gastrointestinal Tumor Board, Derrick L. Davis Forsyth Regional Cancer Center. Targeting lymph node retrieval and assessment in stage II colon cancer: a quality outcome community-based cancer center study.
J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(2):55-5820856779
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 16.Cone MM, Shoop KM, Rea JD, Lu KC, Herzig DO. Ethnicity influences lymph node resection in colon cancer.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(11):1752-175720714936
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 17.Evans MD, Barton K, Rees A, Stamatakis JD, Karandikar SS. The impact of surgeon and pathologist on lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer and its impact on survival for patients with Dukes' stage B disease.
Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(2):157-16417477849
PubMedGoogle Scholar 18.Valsecchi ME, Leighton J Jr, Tester W. Modifiable factors that influence colon cancer lymph node sampling and examination.
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2010;9(3):162-16720643621
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Shen SS, Haupt BX, Ro JY, Zhu J, Bailey HR, Schwartz MR. Number of lymph nodes examined and associated clinicopathologic factors in colorectal carcinoma.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(5):781-78619415953
PubMedGoogle Scholar 20.Thorn CC, Woodcock NP, Scott N, Verbeke C, Scott SB, Ambrose NS. What factors affect lymph node yield in surgery for rectal cancer?
Colorectal Dis. 2004;6(5):356-36115335370
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 21.Norwood MG, Sutton AJ, West K, Sharpe DP, Hemingway D, Kelly MJ. Lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer resection specimens: national standards are achievable, and low numbers are associated with reduced survival.
Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(4):304-30919207700
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 22.Gelos M, Gelhaus J, Mehnert P,
et al. Factors influencing lymph node harvest in colorectal surgery.
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23(1):53-5917823805
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 23.Neufeld D, Bugyev N, Grankin M,
et al. Specimen length as a perioperative surrogate marker for adequate lymphadenectomy in colon cancer: the surgeon's role.
Int Surg. 2007;92(3):155-16017972471
PubMedGoogle Scholar 24.Stocchi L, Fazio VW, Lavery I, Hammel J. Individual surgeon, pathologist, and other factors affecting lymph node harvest in stage II colon carcinoma: is a minimum of 12 examined lymph nodes sufficient?
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(2):405-41220839064
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 25.Senthil M, Trisal V, Paz IB, Lai LL. Prediction of the adequacy of lymph node retrieval in colon cancer by hospital type.
Arch Surg. 2010;145(9):840-84320855753
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 26.Lan YT, Lin JK, Jiang JK, Chang SC, Liang WY, Yang SH. Significance of lymph node retrieval from the terminal ileum for patients with cecal and ascending colonic cancers.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):146-15220734151
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 27.Lagoudianakis E, Pappas A, Koronakis N,
et al. Lymph node harvesting in colorectal carcinoma specimens.
Tumori. 2011;97(1):74-7821528668
PubMedGoogle Scholar 28.Chou JF, Row D, Gonen M, Liu YH, Schrag D, Weiser MR. Clinical and pathologic factors that predict lymph node yield from surgical specimens in colorectal cancer: a population-based study.
Cancer. 2010;116(11):2560-257020499400
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 29.Tekkis PP, Smith JJ, Heriot AG, Darzi AW, Thompson MR, Stamatakis JD.Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. A national study on lymph node retrieval in resectional surgery for colorectal cancer.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(11):1673-168317019656
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 30.Ogino S, Stampfer M. Lifestyle factors and microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: the evolving field of molecular pathological epidemiology.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(6):365-36720208016
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 31.Ogino S, Chan AT, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E. Molecular pathological epidemiology of colorectal neoplasia: an emerging transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary field.
Gut. 2011;60(3):397-41121036793
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 32.Chan AT, Ogino S, Fuchs CS. Aspirin and the risk of colorectal cancer in relation to the expression of COX-2.
N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2131-214217522398
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 33.Morikawa T, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M,
et al. Association of CTNNB1 (β-catenin) alterations, body mass index, and physical activity with survival in patients with colorectal cancer.
JAMA. 2011;305(16):1685-169421521850
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 34.Ogino S, Nosho K, Irahara N,
et al. Lymphocytic reaction to colorectal cancer is associated with longer survival, independent of lymph node count, microsatellite instability, and CpG island methylator phenotype.
Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(20):6412-642019825961
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 35.Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Brahmandam M,
et al. Sensitive sequencing method for
KRAS mutation detection by pyrosequencing.
J Mol Diagn. 2005;7(3):413-42116049314
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 36.Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Kirkner GJ, Loda M, Fuchs CS. CpG island methylator phenotype–low (CIMP-low) in colorectal cancer: possible associations with male sex and
KRAS mutations.
J Mol Diagn. 2006;8(5):582-58817065427
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 37.Nosho K, Kawasaki T, Ohnishi M,
et al.
PIK3CA mutation in colorectal cancer: relationship with genetic and epigenetic alterations.
Neoplasia. 2008;10(6):534-54118516290
PubMedGoogle Scholar 38.Nosho K, Irahara N, Shima K,
et al. Comprehensive biostatistical analysis of CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer using a large population-based sample.
PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e369819002263
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 39.Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ,
et al. CpG island methylator phenotype, microsatellite instability,
BRAF mutation and clinical outcome in colon cancer.
Gut. 2009;58(1):90-9618832519
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 40.Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Brahmandam M,
et al. Precision and performance characteristics of bisulfite conversion and real-time PCR (MethyLight) for quantitative DNA methylation analysis.
J Mol Diagn. 2006;8(2):209-21716645207
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 41.Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M,
et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with
BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer.
Nat Genet. 2006;38(7):787-79316804544
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 42.Ogino S, Cantor M, Kawasaki T,
et al. CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) of colorectal cancer is best characterised by quantitative DNA methylation analysis and prospective cohort studies.
Gut. 2006;55(7):1000-100616407376
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 43.Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ,
et al. A cohort study of tumoral LINE-1 hypomethylation and prognosis in colon cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(23):1734-173819033568
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 44.Irahara N, Nosho K, Baba Y,
et al. Precision of pyrosequencing assay to measure LINE-1 methylation in colon cancer, normal colonic mucosa, and peripheral blood cells.
J Mol Diagn. 2010;12(2):177-18320093385
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 45.Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience; 2002
46.Hayanga AJ, Mukherjee D, Chang D,
et al. Teaching hospital status and operative mortality in the United States: tipping point in the volume-outcome relationship following colon resections?
Arch Surg. 2010;145(4):346-35020404284
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 47.Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Duffy MJ,
et al. Intensive risk-adjusted follow-up with the CEA, TPA, CA19.9, and CA72.4 tumor marker panel and abdominal ultrasonography to diagnose operable colorectal cancer recurrences: effect on survival.
Arch Surg. 2010;145(12):1177-118321173292
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 48.Cone MM, Herzig DO, Diggs BS,
et al. Dramatic decreases in mortality from laparoscopic colon resections based on data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):594-59921576611
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 49.Piessen G, Muscari F, Rivkine E,
et al; FRENCH (Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie). Prevalence of and risk factors for morbidity after elective left colectomy: cancer vs noncomplicated diverticular disease.
Arch Surg. 2011;146(10):1149-115522006873
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 50.Nash GM, Row D, Weiss A,
et al. A predictive model for lymph node yield in colon cancer resection specimens.
Ann Surg. 2011;253(2):318-32221169808
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 51.Eveno C, Nemeth J, Soliman H,
et al. Association between a high number of isolated lymph nodes in T1 to T4 N0M0 colorectal cancer and the microsatellite instability phenotype.
Arch Surg. 2010;145(1):12-1720083749
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 52.Belt EJ, Te Velde EA, Krijgsman O,
et al. High lymph node yield is related to microsatellite instability in colon cancer [published online October 12, 2011].
Ann Surg Oncol21989661
PubMedGoogle Scholar 53. McBride RB, Lebwohl B, Hershman DL, Neugut AI. Impact of socioeconomic status on extent of lymph node dissection for colon cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(3):738-74520200428
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 54.Ostadi MA, Harnish JL, Stegienko S, Urbach DR. Factors affecting the number of lymph nodes retrieved in colorectal cancer specimens.
Surg Endosc. 2007;21(12):2142-214617522917
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 55.Storli K, Lindboe CF, Kristoffersen C, Kleiven K, Søndenaa K. Lymph node harvest in colon cancer specimens depends on tumour factors, patients and doctors, but foremost on specimen handling.
APMIS. 2011;119(2):127-13421208280
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref