A Predictive Model for Nodal Metastases in Patients With Appendiceal Cancers

Which is the appropriate surgical procedure for appendiceal adenocarcinoma: appendectomy, partial colectomy or right hemicolectomy?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the appropriate surgical procedure and clinical decision for appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 1,984 appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of surgical resection: appendectomy (N = 335), partial colectomy (N = 390) and right hemicolectomy (N = 1,259). The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of three groups were compared, and independent prognostic factors were assessed.

RESULTS

The 5-year OS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 58.3%, 65.5% and 69.1%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P < 0.001; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.285; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.045). The 5-year CSS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 73.2%, 77.0% and 78.7%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.046; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.545; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.246). The subgroup analysis based on the pathological TNM stage indicated that there was no survival difference amongst three surgical procedures for stage I patients (5-year CSS rate: 90.8%, 93.9% and 98.1%, respectively). The prognosis of patients who underwent an appendectomy was poorer than that of those who underwent partial colectomy (5-year OS rate: 53.5% vs 67.1%, P = 0.005; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 78.7%, P = 0.003) or right hemicolectomy (5-year OS rate: 74.2% vs 53.23%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) for stage II disease. Right hemicolectomy did not show a survival advantage over partial colectomy for stage II (5-year CSS, P = 0.255) and stage III (5-year CSS, P = 0.846) appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Right hemicolectomy may not always be necessary for appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients. An appendectomy could be sufficient for therapeutic effect of stage I patients, but limited for stage II patients. Right hemicolectomy was not superior to partial colectomy for advanced stage patients, suggesting omission of standard hemicolectomy might be feasible. However, adequate lymphadenectomy should be strongly recommended.

Appendectomy Is Oncologically Equivalent to Right Hemicolectomy for Well-Differentiated T1 Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Right hemicolectomy is recommended for appendiceal adenocarcinoma but may not be needed for early stage disease.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether appendectomy offers adequate oncologic outcomes for T1 appendiceal adenocarcinoma from a national cohort of patients.

DESIGN

Patients with T1 appendiceal adenocarcinoma (mucinous and nonmucinous histology) treated with either a right hemicolectomy or appendectomy between 2004 and 2016 were retrieved. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of overall survival.

SETTING

The study was conducted using a national cancer database.

PATIENTS

A total of 320 patients (median age, 62 y; 47% women) were identified: 69 (22%) underwent an appendectomy and 251 (78%) underwent a right hemicolectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Overall survival was measured.

RESULTS

Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma was identified in 194 (61%), whereas 126 (39%) had mucinous adenocarcinoma. Of the overall cohort, 43% had well-differentiated histology, 39% had moderately differentiated disease, and 4% had poorly differentiated tumors. The rate of lymph node metastasis was lower in well-differentiated tumors (3%) compared with moderately (10%) or poorly differentiated tumors (25%). On univariate survival analysis, right hemicolectomy was associated with improved 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival in patients with moderately/poorly differentiated disease ( p < 0.001) but not for well-differentiated disease ( p = 1.000). After adjustment, right hemicolectomy was associated with overall survival improvement for moderately/poorly differentiated T1 adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.26 [95% CI, 0.08-0.82]; p = 0.02) but not for well-differentiated disease.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis from the National Cancer Database demonstrates that appendectomy is associated with equivalent survival to right hemicolectomy for well-differentiated T1 adenocarcinoma, whereas for moderately and poorly differentiated disease, right hemicolectomy is oncologically superior to appendectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B689 .

LA APENDICECTOMA ES ONCOLGICAMENTE EQUIVALENTE A LA HEMICOLECTOMA DERECHA PARA EL ADENOCARCINOMA APENDICULAR T BIEN DIFERENCIADO

ANTECEDENTES:La hemicolectomía derecha se recomienda para el adenocarcinoma apendicular, pero puede no ser necesaria para la enfermedad en estadio temprano.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar si la apendicectomía ofrece resultados oncológicos adecuados para el adenocarcinoma apendicular T1 de una cohorte nacional de pacientes.DISEÑO:Se recuperaron pacientes con adenocarcinoma apendicular T1 (histología mucinoso y no mucinoso) tratados con hemicolectomía derecha o apendicectomía entre 2004-2016. Se utilizó un análisis de regresión de Cox multivariante para identificar los predictores de la supervivencia global.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Base de datos nacional sobre cáncer.PACIENTES:Se identificaron un total de 320 pacientes (mediana de edad 62 años, 47% mujeres): 69 (22%) se sometieron a una apendicectomía y 251 (78%) se sometieron a una hemicolectomía derecha.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:Sobrevida global.RESULTADOS:Se identificó adenocarcinoma no mucinoso en 194 (61%) mientras que 126 (39%) tenían adenocarcinoma mucinoso. De la cohorte general, el 43% tenía una histología bien diferenciada, el 39% tenía una enfermedad moderadamente diferenciada y el 4% tenía tumores poco diferenciados. La tasa de metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos fue menor en los tumores bien diferenciados (3%) en comparación con los tumores moderadamente (10%) o pobremente diferenciados (25%). En el análisis de sobrevida univariante, la hemicolectomía derecha se asoció con una mejor sobrevida general a 1, 3, y 5 años en pacientes con enfermedad moderada / pobremente diferenciada ( p < 0,001) pero no para la enfermedad bien diferenciada ( p = 1,000). Después del ajuste, la hemicolectomía derecha se asoció con una mejora de la sobrevida general para el adenocarcinoma T1 moderadamente / poco diferenciado (HR = 0,26, IC del 95%: 0,08-0,82, p = 0,02) pero no para la enfermedad bien diferenciada.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva.CONCLUSIONES:El análisis actual de la base de datos nacional de cáncer demuestra que la apendicectomía se asocia con una sobrevida similar a la hemicolectomía derecha para el adenocarcinoma T1 bien diferenciado, mientras que para la enfermedad moderada y pobremente diferenciada, la hemicolectomía derecha es oncológicamente superior a la apendicectomía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B689 . (Traducción-Dr. Yazmin Berrones-Medina ).

Clinical Significance of Lymph Node Dissection and Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Appendiceal Tumor Patients After Curative Resection: a Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Due to its rarity and biological heterogeneity, guidelines for primary appendiceal tumor (PAT) are based on scarce evidence, resulting in no strong recommendations. The present study explored prognosis-related factors, including the timing of lymph node dissection (LND), in PAT patients after curative resection (CR) to determine the optimal surgical therapies.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected and analyzed data from 404 patients with PATs who underwent CR at 43 tertiary hospitals from 2000 to 2017. This manuscript is based on revised manuscript during review process. Please, change the bold characters to normal characters in the manuscript.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were no marked differences in the recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) between the primary and secondary LND groups (P = 0.993 and 0.728). A multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis (LNM) was an independent factor for the RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-6.13; P = 0.031) and OS (HR 4.70; 95% CI 1.40-15.76; P = 0.012). There were significant associations between the LNM rates and tumor depth (P < 0.0001) and the histological type (P = 0.006). There was no LNM in patients with low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) or well-differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma (G1) or patients with any Tis or T1 PATs.

CONCLUSIONS

LNM was an independent prognostic predictor in PATs after CR with LND. Tumor depth and histological type were not prognostic predictors but were LNM predictors. Secondary LND based on the pathological findings of resected specimens is considered an acceptable surgical management without a worse prognosis than primary LND, and it may be omitted in LAMN+G1 or in any Tis and T1 PATs.

Predictors of lymph node metastases in patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis (LN+) is a prognostic factor in appendiceal cancers, but predictors and outcomes for LN+  in mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma (MAC) remain poorly defined.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the 2010 to 2016 NCDB who underwent surgical resection as first-line management for Stage I-III mucinous appendiceal cancer. A LN+ risk-score model was developed using multivariable regression on a training data set and internally validated using a testing data set. Three-year overall survival (OS) was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Of 1158 patients, LN+ (N = 244, 21.1%) patients were more likely to have higher pT group and grade of disease, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and positive margins on univariate analyses. Predictive factors associated with LN+ on multivariable analysis included positive surgical margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, P <.0001), higher grade (moderately differentiated: OR, 2.16, P < .0001; poorly or undifferentiated: OR, 3.07, P < .0001), and LVI (OR, 7.28, P < .0001). A validated risk-score model using these factors was developed with good performance (AUC 0.749). LN+ patients had a worse 3-year OS compared with LN- patients (17.4% vs 82.6%, hazard ratio 1.96, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

LN+ is associated with worse survival in patients with MAC. A risk-score model using margin status, LVI, and grade can accurately risk stratify patients for LN+.

A Nomogram for Predicting Lymph Nodal Metastases in Patients with Appendiceal Cancers: An Analysis of SEER Database

BACKGROUNDS

Appendiceal cancers are usually diagnosed after appendectomy accidentally. The need for subsequent right hemicolectomy in these patients was determined by the potential risk of regional lymph node (LN) metastasis. Establishing a nomogram to forecast the potential risk of lymph node metastasis of appendiceal cancer could help in the next step of treatment.

METHODS

Patients with appendiceal cancer undergoing surgery was queried in the American cancer database of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database from 2004 to 2016. A nomogram was established based on Logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Finally, 3,075 patients were diagnosed with appendectomy cancer from 2004 to 2016. Among them, there were 2028 (65.9%) cases with negative lymph nodes, 1047 (34.1%) cases with positive lymph nodes. Risk factors associated with lymph node metastasis include age, histological type, tissue grade, T stage, distant metastasis, and tumor size. We drew the ROC curves of the training group（0.754, P < 0.001） and the validation group （0.775, P < 0.001） respectively. C-index values of predictions were 0.772 (95%CI, 0.750-0.793) and 0.776 (95%CI, 0.746-0.807), and Brier score were 0.178 and 0.172 in training and validation group respectively. All of them showed excellent performance of the nomogram in our study.

CONCLUSION

A new nomogram was created to assess the potential risk of LN metastasis in patients of appendiceal cancer by utilizing age, tumor histology, tumor pathologic grade, tumor size, T-stage, and M-stage. The nomogram could provide a strong reference for the right hemicolectomy and facilitate clinic decision.