What is the most accurate lymph node staging method for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma? Comparison of UICC/AJCC pN stage, number of metastatic lymph nodes, lymph node ratio, and log odds of metastatic lymph nodes.

BACKGROUND: We compared the prognostic performance of the International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) 7th edition pN stage, number of metastatic LNs (MLNs), LN ratio (LNR), and log odds of MLNs (LODDS) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PCC) undergoing curative surgery in order to identify the best LN staging method. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients who underwent surgery with curative intent for PCC in a single tertiary hepatobiliary referral center were included in the study. Two approaches were used to evaluate and compare the predictive power of the different LN staging methods: one based on the estimation of variable importance with prediction error rate and the other based on the calculation of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: LN dissection was performed in 92 (92.9%) patients; 49 were UICC/AJCC pN0 (49.5%), 33 pN1 (33.3%), and 10 pN2 (10.1%). The median number of LNs retrieved was 8. The prediction error rate ranged from 42.7% for LODDS to 47.1% for UICC/AJCC pN stage. Moreover, LODDS was the variable with the highest area under the ROC curve (AUC) for prediction of 3-year survival (AUC = 0.71), followed by LNR (AUC = 0.60), number of MLNs (AUC = 0.59), and UICC/AJCC pN stage (AUC = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The number of MLNs, LNR, and LODDS appear to better predict survival than the UICC/AJCC pN stage in patients undergoing curative surgery for PCC. Moreover, LODDS seems to be the most accurate and predictive LN staging method.

Survival prognostic factors of gastro-enteric-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after primary tumor resection in a single tertiary center: Comparison of gastro-enteric and pancreatic locations.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluated prognostic factors of patients with GEP-NETs after primary tumor resection comparing pancreatic and gastro-enteric locations. METHODS: Patients undergone surgery for primary GEP-NETs between 01/2000 and 03/2012 were considered. All specimens were reclassified according to the WHO 2010 scheme. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were considered: 37 pancreatic NETs (pNET) and 46 gastroenteric NETs (GE-NET). The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex and tumors size. A higher rate of patients with pNETs had Ki67 score ≥3 (64.8% vs. 39%, p = 0.027) while the rates of Mitotic Index ≥2x10HPF (62% pNET vs. 50% GE-NET, p = 0.374) and diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma NEC (16.2% pNET vs. 17.3% GE-NET, p = 0.100) were similar. The rates of distant metastases (GE-NETs 30.4% vs. p-NETs 29.7%, p = 0.944) and liver metastases (19.5% GE-NET vs. 27% pNET, p = 0.421) were comparable. Radical resection was achieved in a similar proportion in both groups [33 patients (89.1%) pNET vs. 36 (78.2%) GE-NET, p = 0.393]. After a median follow-up of 47.1 months overall 3, 5 and 10-years survival rates of whole patients were 88.1%, 81.2% and 76.7%. There was not difference on 5-years overall survival between pNET (81.4%) and GE-NET (81%, p = 0.901). At multivariate analysis age ≥70 [OR 4.177 (CI 95% 1.26-13.8), p = 0.019] and NEC [OR 5.932 (CI 95% 1.81-19.40), p < 0.001] were negative prognostic factors of survival. CONCLUSION: Overall survival of GEP-NET after resection of primary tumors seems to be correlated to patient's age and WHO 2010 staging system but not to primary tumor site.