Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 13, pp 4161–4167 | Cite as

Resection with En Bloc Removal of Regional Lymph Node after Endoscopic Resection for T1 Colorectal Cancer

  • Hirotoshi Kobayashi
  • Tetsuro Higuchi
  • Hiroyuki Uetake
  • Satoru Iida
  • Toshiaki Ishikawa
  • Megumi Ishiguro
  • Kenichi Sugihara
Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

Various guidelines suggest indications for performing additional colectomy with en bloc removal of regional lymph nodes after endoscopic resection for T1 colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pathologic outcomes of patients with surgical treatment after endoscopic resection for T1 colorectal cancer.

Methods

We used data from 275 patients who had undergone curative resection for T1 colorectal cancer at a single institution between 1991 and 2009. We evaluated the rationale for additional surgical treatment after endoscopic resection performed on 68 of the 275 patients and the association between various clinicopathologic features and lymph node metastasis.

Results

The 5-year overall survival rate was 96.3 %. Reasons for additional surgical treatment included an endoscopic specimen with a pathologically positive margin (n = 20), lymphovascular invasion (n = 25), and submucosal invasion depth of ≥1,000 μm (n = 23). When endoscopists failed to find macroscopic cancer residue during endoscopic resection, no pathologically residual cancer was found in the resected specimens. Histologic grade was an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis (p = 0.028). In the absence of lymphovascular invasion, patients with well-differentiated T1 colorectal cancer did not have nodal involvement.

Conclusions

Although the outcomes of patients with additional surgical treatment after endoscopic resection for T1 colorectal cancer were satisfactory, excessive and unnecessary treatments may have been performed. Additional surgical treatment after endoscopic resection for T1 colorectal cancer might be unnecessary for patients with well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and no lymphovascular invasion.

Keywords

Lymph Node Metastasis Endoscopic Resection Lymphovascular Invasion Lymph Node Ratio Residual Cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kotake K, Honjo S, Sugihara K, et al. Changes in colorectal cancer during a 20-year period: an extended report from the multi-institutional registry of large bowel cancer, Japan. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:S32–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Nakamura M, et al. Successful outcomes of a novel endoscopic treatment for GI tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with a mixture of high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, glycerin, and sugar. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. 1993;25:455–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T, et al. Endoscopic treatment of large superficial colorectal tumors: a case series of 200 endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:966–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:100–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Kato T, et al. Is total mesorectal excision always necessary for T1–T2 lower rectal cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:973–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Morita T, et al. Characteristics of recurrence after curative resection for T1 colorectal cancer: Japanese multicenter study. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:203–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nascimbeni R, Burgart LJ, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR. Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:200–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nivatvongs S, Rojanasakul A, Reiman HM, et al. The risk of lymph node metastasis in colorectal polyps with invasive adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34:323–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. JSCCR guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Tokyo: Kanehara, 2010 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitajima K, Fujimori T, Fujii S, et al. Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal invasion in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: a Japanese collaborative study. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:534–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haggitt RC, Glotzbach RE, Soffer EE, Wruble LD. Prognostic factors in colorectal carcinomas arising in adenomas: implications for lesions removed by endoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology. 1985;89:328–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Labianca R, Nordlinger B, Beretta GD, Brouquet A, Cervantes A. Primary colon cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(Suppl. 5):v70–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Colon Cancer. Version 3.2011. http://www.nccn.com/files/cancer-guidelines/colon/index.html.
  16. 16.
    Cooper HS, Deppisch LM, Gourley WK, et al. Endoscopically removed malignant colorectal polyps: clinicopathologic correlations. Gastroenterology. 1995;108:1657–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobayashi H, Ueno H, Hashiguchi Y, Mochizuki H. Distribution of lymph node metastasis is a prognostic index in patients with stage III colon cancer. Surgery. 2006;139:516–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma. Tokyo: Kanehara, 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berger AC, Sigurdson ER, LeVoyer T, et al. Colon cancer survival is associated with decreasing ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8706–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobayashi H, Enomoto M, Higuchi T, et al. Clinical significance of lymph node ratio and location of nodal involvement in patients with right colon cancer. Dig Surg. 2011;28:190–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Kato T, et al. Lymph node ratio is a powerful prognostic index in patients with stage III distal rectal cancer: a Japanese multicenter study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:891–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peschaud F, Benoist S, Julie C, et al. The ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes is a powerful independent prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1067–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg R, Friederichs J, Schuster T, et al. Prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer is associated with lymph node ratio: a single-center analysis of 3,026 patients over a 25-year time period. Ann Surg. 2008;248:968–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    West NP, Kobayashi H, Takahashi K, et al. Understanding optimal colonic cancer surgery: comparison of Japanese d3 resection and European complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1763–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hirotoshi Kobayashi
    • 1
  • Tetsuro Higuchi
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Uetake
    • 3
  • Satoru Iida
    • 2
  • Toshiaki Ishikawa
    • 3
  • Megumi Ishiguro
    • 2
  • Kenichi Sugihara
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Minimally Invasive SurgeryTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Surgical Oncology, Graduate SchoolTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Translational Oncology, Graduate SchoolTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations