Skip Navigation



Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on September 13, 2006
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl312
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/12/1803    most recent
mdl312v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lemmens, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Coebergh, J.-W. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lemmens, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Coebergh, J.-W. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology
Received April 12, 2006
Revised July 18, 2006
Accepted July 19, 2006

original article

Pathology practice patterns affect lymph node evaluation and outcome of colon cancer: a population-based study

V. E. Lemmens 1 *, I. van Lijnschoten 2, M. L. Janssen-Heijnen 3, H. J. Rutten 4, C. D. Verheij 3, and J.-W. W. Coebergh 1

1 Department of Research, Comprehensive Cancer Centre South, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Pathology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
3 Department of Research, Comprehensive Cancer Centre South, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
4 Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
V. E. Lemmens, E-mail: research{at}ikz.nl


  Abstract

Background: A large variation in the number of nodes examined between patients, hospitals, and regions has been reported for patients with colon cancer. We studied determinants of this variation and its relation to survival in the south of The Netherlands.

Patients and methods: All patients who underwent resection for stage I-III colon carcinoma diagnosed from 1999 to 2002 in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry area were included (n = 2168). Determinants of lymph node evaluation and their relationship to survival were assessed, including variation between the six departments of pathology.

Results: A median number of six lymph nodes per specimen had been examined. The median number for each department of pathology ranged from three to eight (P < 0.0001). After correction for relevant factors, this variation remained, resulting in differences in the proportion of N+ tumours between departments from 29% to 41% (P < 0.0001). The number of nodes examined was positively associated with survival. Survival for node-negative patients differed between the departments of pathology (up to hazard ratio 1.5; P = 0.02).

Conclusion: There was a large variation in lymph node evaluation between the departments of pathology, leading to differences in stage distribution and survival. Intervention strategies should be directed at nodal assessment.

Keywords: colon cancer; lymph nodes; pathology practice; survival.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GutHome page
E. J A Morris, N. J Maughan, D. Forman, and P. Quirke
Who to treat with adjuvant therapy in Dukes B/stage II colorectal cancer? The need for high quality pathology
Gut, October 1, 2007; 56(10): 1419 - 1425.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.