J Pathol Transl Med.  2020 Sep;54(5):387-395. 10.4132/jptm.2020.06.23.

Lymph node size and its association with nodal metastasis in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 2Department of Statistics, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
  • 3Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 4Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

Background
Although lymph node metastasis is a poor prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), our understanding of lymph node size in association with PDAC is limited. Increased nodal size in preoperative imaging has been used to detect node metastasis. We evaluated whether lymph node size can be used as a surrogate preoperative marker of lymph node metastasis.
Methods
We assessed nodal size and compared it to the nodal metastatic status of 200 patients with surgically resected PDAC. The size of all lymph nodes and metastatic nodal foci were measured along the long and short axis, and the relationships between nodal size and metastatic status were compared at six cutoff points.
Results
A total of 4,525 lymph nodes were examined, 9.1% of which were metastatic. The mean size of the metastatic nodes (long axis, 6.9±5.0 mm; short axis, 4.3±3.1 mm) was significantly larger than that of the non-metastatic nodes (long axis, 5.0±4.0 mm; short axis, 3.0±2.0 mm; all p<.001). Using a 10 mm cutoff, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, overall accuracy, and area under curve was 24.8%, 88.0%, 17.1%, 82.3%, and 0.60 for the long axis and 7.0%, 99.0%, 40.3%, 90.6%, and 0.61 for the short axis, respectively.
Conclusions
The metastatic nodes are larger than the non-metastatic nodes in PDAC patients. However, the difference in nodal size was too small to be identified with preoperative imaging. The performance of preoperative radiologic imaging to predict lymph nodal metastasis was not good. Therefore, nodal size cannot be used a surrogate preoperative marker of lymph node metastasis.

Keyword

Pancreas; Neoplasms; Lymph node; Size; Metastasis

Figure

  • Fig. 1. Flow chart for patient selection. PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm.

  • Fig. 2. Representative gross (before and after fixation) and microscopic images of evaluated lymph nodes. Gross images of lymph node before (A) and after (B) fixation. (C) Image of lymph node in formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue block. (D) Microscopic image on H&E stained slides of lymph node.

  • Fig. 3. Examined lymph node distribution, per case.

  • Fig. 4. Metastatic lymph node distribution, per case.

  • Fig. 5. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of the estimated lymph node metastasis at six different cutoff points (6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20 mm) by measurement along the long axis diameter. (A) ROC curves of estimated lymph node metastasis at cutoff points of 6, 8, and 10 mm. (B) ROC curves of estimated lymph node metastasis at cutoff points of 12, 15, and 20 mm. The largest area under the curve (AUC) value of the ROC curve was 0.603 at the 10 mm cutoff point.

  • Fig. 6. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of the estimated lymph node metastasis at 6 different cutoff points of (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm) by measurement along the short axis diameter. (A) ROC curves of estimated lymph node metastasis at cutoff points of 4, 6, and 8 mm. (B) ROC curves of estimated lymph node metastasis at cutoff points of 10, 12, and 14 mm. The largest area under the curve (AUC) value of the ROC curve was 0.610 at the 10 mm cutoff point.


Reference

References

1. Roth MT, Berlin JD. Current concepts in the treatment of resectable pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018; 20:39.
Article
2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Lee ES. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2018. Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 50:317–23.
Article
3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69:7–34.
Article
4. Hernandez JM, Morton CA, Al-Saadi S, et al. The natural history of resected pancreatic cancer without adjuvant chemotherapy. Am Surg. 2010; 76:480–5.
Article
5. Lowder CY, Metkus J, Epstein J, et al. Clinical implications of extensive lymph node metastases for resected pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25:4004–11.
Article
6. Allen PJ, Kuk D, Castillo CF, et al. Multi-institutional validation study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) changes for T and N staging in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017; 265:185–91.
Article
7. Konstantinidis IT, Deshpande V, Zheng H, et al. Does the mechanism of lymph node invasion affect survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? J Gastrointest Surg. 2010; 14:261–7.
Article
8. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, et al. Number of metastatic lymph nodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 211:196–204.
Article
9. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer;2017.
10. Li HJ, Chen YT, Yuan SQ. Proposal of a modified American Joint Committee on Cancer staging scheme for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a lymph node ratio-based N classification: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97:e12094.
11. Schwarz RE, Smith DD. Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13:1189–200.
Article
12. Tomlinson JS, Jain S, Bentrem DJ, et al. Accuracy of staging nodenegative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg. 2007; 142:767–23.
13. van der Valk P, Meijer CJ. The lymph nodes. In: Mills SE, ed. Histology for pathologists. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2012. p. 820–8.
14. Prenzel KL, Holscher AH, Vallbohmer D, et al. Lymph node size and metastatic infiltration in adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010; 36:993–6.
Article
15. Roche CJ, Hughes ML, Garvey CJ, et al. CT and pathologic assessment of prospective nodal staging in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180:475–80.
Article
16. Megibow AJ, Zhou XH, Rotterdam H, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: CT versus MR imaging in the evaluation of resectability: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1995; 195:327–32.
17. Muller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, Schaer R, Marincek B. Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1994; 190:745–51.
Article
18. Midwinter MJ, Beveridge CJ, Wilsdon JB, Bennett MK, Baudouin CJ, Charnley RM. Correlation between spiral computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and findings at operation in pancreatic and ampullary tumours. Br J Surg. 1999; 86:189–93.
Article
19. Palazzo L, Roseau G, Gayet B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of a prospective study with comparison to ultrasonography and CT scan. Endoscopy. 1993; 25:143–50.
20. Zeman RK, Cooper C, Zeiberg AS, et al. TNM staging of pancreatic carcinoma using helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 169:459–64.
Article
21. Rosch T, Braig C, Gain T, et al. Staging of pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography. Comparison with conventional sonography, computed tomography, and angiography. Gastroenterology. 1992; 102:188–99.
22. Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology. 2014; 270:248–60.
Article
23. Rosai J. Rosai and Ackerman’s surgical pathology. 10th ed. New York: Mosby Elsevier;2011.
24. Tran T, Sundaram CP, Bahler CD, et al. Correcting the shrinkage effects of formalin fixation and tissue processing for renal tumors: toward standardization of pathological reporting of tumor size. J Cancer. 2015; 6:759–66.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JPTM
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr