The impact of positive nodal chain ratio on individualized multimodality therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer

Alternative methods of lymph node staging in lung cancer: a narrative review

The nodal status indicator in non-small cell lung cancer is one of the most crucial prognostic factors available. However, there are still many arguments among scientists regarding whether the currently used nodal status descriptor should be changed in the forthcoming editions of the Tumor Node Metastasis classification or whether it is precise enough and should be maintained as is. We reviewed studies concerning nodal factor classifications to evaluate their accuracy in non-small cell lung cancer patients and to address the previously mentioned challenge. We reviewed the PubMed database regarding the following classifications: ongoing 8^th edition of the Tumor Node Metastasis classification, number of positive lymph nodes, number of negative lymph nodes, number of dissected lymph nodes, lymph node ratio, nodal chains, log odds of positive lymph nodes, zone-based classification and one that is based on the number of lymph node stations involved. Moreover, we analysed data regarding various combinations of these classifications. Our analysis showed that the present nodal staging may not accurately categorize every lung cancer patient. The number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio or the log odds of positive lymph nodes (as the mathematical modification of lymph node ratio) are more legitimate, as they possess very robust data and should be considered initially as additional factors that can be incorporated in ongoing nodal staging systems. Forthcoming non-small cell lung cancer staging systems could benefit from the addition of quantitative-based parameters. Additionally, the minimal extent of lymphadenectomy should be established as staging benefits from it. International, prospective validation studies need to be performed to optimize the cut-off values and prognostic groups and to confirm the superiority of the newly suggested descriptors in non-small cell lung cancer nodal staging.

A clinical prognostic scoring system for resectable gastric cancer to predict survival and benefit from paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is a standard procedure of curative resection for gastric cancer (GC). The aim of this study was to develop a simple and reliable prognostic scoring system for GC treated with D2 gastrectomy combined with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

A prognostic scoring system was established based on clinical and laboratory data from 579 patients with localized GC without distant metastasis treated with D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

From the multivariate model for overall survival (OS), five factors were selected for the scoring system: ≥50% metastatic lymph node rate, positive lymphovascular invasion, pathologic TNM Stage II or III, ≥5 ng/mL preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and <110 g/L preoperative hemoglobin. Two models were derived using different methods. Model A identified low- and high-risk patients for OS (P<0.001), while Model B differentiated low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients for OS (P<0.001). Stage III patients in the low-risk group had higher survival probabilities than Stage II patients. Both Model A (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.78) and Model B (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72–0.83) were better predictors compared with the pathologic TNM classification (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.59–0.71, P<0.001). Adjuvant paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based or triple chemotherapy showed significantly better outcomes in patients classified as high risk, but not in those with low and intermediate risk.

Conclusion

A clinical three-tier prognostic risk scoring system was established to predict OS of GC treated with D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. The potential advantage of this scoring system is that it can identify high-risk patients in Stage II or III who may benefit from paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based regimens. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results before they are applied clinically.