Advertisement

The Role of Log Odds of Positive Lymph Nodes in Predicting the Survival after Resection for Ampullary Adenocarcinoma

  • Cihan AgalarEmail author
  • Anıl Aysal
  • Tarkan Unek
  • Tufan Egeli
  • Mucahit Ozbilgin
  • Nesrin Akturk
  • Huseyin Salih Semiz
  • Tugba Unek
  • Mesut Akarsu
  • Müjde Soyturk
  • Hulya Ellidokuz
  • Ozgul Sagol
  • Ibrahim Astarcioglu
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Lymph node metastasis is a important factor on survival in ampullary adenocarcinoma. Log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) is a novel prognostic indicator on lymph node status. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of LODDS for the patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma who underwent R0 pancreaticoduodenectomy. The study includes 42 patients.. LODDS was calculated as “log (number of metastatic lymph nodes+0.5)/(number of total harvested nodes - metastatic lymph nodes+0.5)”. LODDS subgroups were created based on their LODDS value: LODDS1(LODDS≤ − 1.5), LODDS2(−1.5 < LODDS≤ − 1.0), LODDS3(−1.0 < LODDS≤ − 0.5), LODDS4(LODDS> − 0.5). The mean survival time was 72.7 ± 7.82 months. Survival rates for 1, 3 and 5 years were 93%, 65% and 45%, respectively. The mean LODDS value was −1.0466 ± 0.51. LODDS subgroups show strong correlation with Overall Survival(OS). The mean survival were 114.8, 81.8, 56.6 and 25.6 months in LODDS subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively (Log-rank; p = 0.002), in addition LOODS values shows correlation with perineural invasion and micro vascular invasion (p = 0.015 and p = 0.001 respectively). Findings in our patient group support the hypothesis that LODDS subgroups correlate with OS, and that value of LODDS has considerable role in prediction of OS as well.

Keywords

Log odds of positive lymph nodes Ampullary adenocarcinoma LODDS Microvascular invasion Perineural invasion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that there is no potential and real conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Albores-Saavedra J, Schwartz AM, Batich K, Henson DE (2009) Cancers of the ampulla of vater: demographics, morphology, and survival based on 5,625 cases from the SEER program. J Surg Oncol 100:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benhamiche AM, Jouve JL, Manfredi S, Prost P, Isambert N, Faivre J (2000) Cancer of the ampulla of Vater: results of a 20-year population-based study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beger HG, Treitschke F, Gansauge F, Harada N, Hiki N, Mattfeld T (1999) Tumor of the ampulla of Vater: experience with local or radical resection in 171 consecutively treated patients. Arch Surg 134:526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Manunga J et al (2008) Survival after resection of Ampullary carcinoma: a National Population-Based Study. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1820–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (2010) AJCC Cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falconi M, Crippa S, Domínguez I et al (2008) Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio and number of resected nodes after curative resection of ampulla of Vater carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 15:3178–3186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sierzega M, Nowak K, Kulig J, Matyja A, Nowak W, Popiela T (2009) Lymph node involvement in ampullary cancer: the importance of the number, ratio, and location of metastatic nodes. J Surg Oncol 100:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balci S, Basturk O, Saka B et al (2015) Substaging nodal status in Ampullary carcinomas has significant prognostic value: proposed revised staging based on an analysis of 313 well-characterized cases. Ann Surg Oncol 22:4392–4401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang HJ, Eo SH, Kim SC et al (2014) Increased number of metastatic lymph nodes in adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater as a prognostic factor: a proposal of new nodal classification. Surgery 155:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amin M.B, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th. Edition, Chicago. 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun Z, Xu Y, Li DM et al (2010) Log odds of positive lymph nodes: a novel prognostic indicator superior to the number-based and the ratio-based n category for gastric cancer patients with R0 resection. Cancer 116:2571–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang J, Hassett JM, Dayton MT, Kulaylat MN (2008) The prognostic superiority of log odds of positive lymph nodes in stage III colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 12:1790–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen LJ, Chung KP, Chang YJ, Chang YJ (2015) Ratio and log odds of positive lymph nodes in breast cancer patients with mastectomy. Surg Oncol 24:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang B, Chen C, Ni M, Mo S, Cai G, Cai S (2016) Log odds of positive lymph nodes is a superior prognostic indicator in stage III rectal cancer patients: a retrospective analysis of 17,632 patients in the SEER database. Int J Surg 32:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lahat G, Lubezky N, Gerstenhaber F et al (2016) Number of evaluated lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes, lymph node ratio, and log odds evaluation in early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: numerology or valid indicators of patient outcome? World J Surg Onc 14:254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manabe T, Ohshio G, Baba N et al (1989) Radical pancreatectomy for ductal cell carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Cancer 64:1132–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tol JA, Gouma DJ, Bassi C et al (2014) Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the international study group on pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 156:591–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Louvet C, André T, Hammel P et al (2001) Phase II trial of bimonthly leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (FOLFUGEM). Ann Oncol 12:675–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goodman KA, Regine WF, Dawson LA et al (2012) Radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel guidelines for the delineation of the clinical target volume in the postoperative treatment of pancreatic head cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arslan NC, Sokmen S, Canda AE, Terzi C, Sarioglu S (2014) The prognostic impact of the log odds of positive lymph nodes in colon cancer. Color Dis 16:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen S-C, Shyr Y-M, Chou S-C, Wang S-E (2015) The role of lymph nodes in predicting the prognosis of ampullary carcinoma after curative resection. World J Surg Onc 13:224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sessa F, Furlan D, Zampatti C et al (2007) Prognostic factors for ampullary adenocarcinomas: tumor stage, tumor histology, tumor location, immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. Virchows Arch 451:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Showalter TN, Zhan T, Anne PR, Carnevali I, Franzi F, Capella C (2011) The influence of prognostic factors and adjuvant Chemoradiation on survival after Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ampullary carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1411–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T, Ajioka Y, Akazawa K, Hatakeyama K (2011) Assessment of the nodal status in ampullary carcinoma: the number of positive lymph nodes versus the lymph node ratio. World J Surg 35:2118–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chang DK, Jamieson NB, Johns AL et al (2013) Histomolecular phenotypes and outcome in adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of vater. J Clin Oncol 31:1348–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi SB, Kim WB, Song TJ, Suh SO, Kim YC, Choi SY (2011) Surgical outcomes and prognostic factors for ampulla of vater cancer. Scand J Surg 100:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Paiva Haddad LB, Patzina RA, Penteado S et al (2010) Lymph node involvement and not the histophatologic subtype is correlated with outcome after resection of adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of vater. J Gastrointest Surg 14:719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T et al (2007) Number of positive lymph nodes independently affects long-term survival after resection in patients with ampullary carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sommerville CAM, Limongelli P, Pai M et al (2009) Survival analysis after pancreatic resection for ampullary and pancreatic head carcinoma: an analysis of clinicopathological factors. J Surg Oncol 100:651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee JH, Lee KG, Ha TK, Jun YJ, Paik SS, Park HK (2011) Pattern analysis of lymph node metastasis and the prognostic importance of number of metastatic nodes in ampullary adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 77:322–329Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhou J, Zhang Q, Li P, Shan Y, Zhao D, Cai J (2013) Prognostic relevance of number and ratio of metastatic lymph nodes in resected carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Chin J Cancer Res 25:735–742Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    La Torre M, Nigri G, Petrucciani N et al (2014) Prognostic assessment of different lymph node staging methods for pancreatic cancer with R0 resection: PN staging, lymph node ratio, log odds of positive lymph nodes. Pancreatology 14:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kwon J, Kim K, Chie EK et al (2017) Prognostic relevance of lymph node status for patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma after radical resection followed by adjuvant treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1690–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Arányi Lajos Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cihan Agalar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anıl Aysal
    • 2
  • Tarkan Unek
    • 1
  • Tufan Egeli
    • 1
  • Mucahit Ozbilgin
    • 1
  • Nesrin Akturk
    • 3
  • Huseyin Salih Semiz
    • 4
  • Tugba Unek
    • 4
  • Mesut Akarsu
    • 5
  • Müjde Soyturk
    • 5
  • Hulya Ellidokuz
    • 6
  • Ozgul Sagol
    • 2
  • Ibrahim Astarcioglu
    • 1
  1. 1.The Department of General SurgeryDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineİzmirTurkey
  2. 2.The Department of PathologyDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.The Department of Radiation OncologyDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey
  4. 4.The Department of Medical OncologyDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey
  5. 5.The Department of GastroenterologyDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey
  6. 6.The Department of Preventive OncologyDokuz Eylul University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations