Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 30;14(6):3410-3419.
doi: 10.21037/tcr-2024-2611. Epub 2025 Jun 23.

Ramifications of lymph node metastasis in patients with pT1 colorectal cancer

Affiliations

Ramifications of lymph node metastasis in patients with pT1 colorectal cancer

Liming Wang et al. Transl Cancer Res. .

Abstract

Background: The prognosis of stage IIIA colorectal cancer (CRC) is much better than stage II CRC in Japan. The purpose of this study was to investigate the implications of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with pT1 CRC and to explore potential downstaging of pT1N1 CRC.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was undertaken at a high-volume cancer center in Japan, grouping all eligible patients with radically resected pT1 CRC (n=723) according to presence (LNM+) or absence (LNM-) of LNM. We compared relapse-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates before and after propensity score matching.

Results: LNM was ultimately confirmed in 96 study subjects (13.3%). Ninety-two patients (95.83%) were N1 and only 4 (4.17%) patients were N2. Before matching, tumors of the LNM+ (vs. LNM-) group were bulkier (≥3 cm: 25.0% vs. 15.8%; P=0.03), with greater propensity for lymphatic (41.7% vs. 25.2%; P<0.001) or vascular (55.2% vs. 30.1%; P=0.004) invasion. Likewise, mean operative time (204.7±76.2 vs. 187.9±67.9; P=0.02) and hospital stay (10.47±9.449 vs. 8.32±7.029; P=0.03) tended to be lengthier. Although similar in terms of CSS (LNM+, 98.5%; LNM-, 99.0%; P=0.67), the LNM+ (vs. LNM-) group displayed significantly worse RFS (90.5% vs. 97.4%; P=0.004). After matching, neither RFS (94.8% vs. 90.2%; P=0.33) nor CSS (100% vs. 98.7%; P=0.23) differed significantly by group; and at no point (before or after matching) did LNM+ status emerge as an independent risk factor for RFS or CSS. Before matching, a higher recurrence rate was evident in the LNM+ (vs. LNM-) group (7.3% vs. 1.8%, P=0.001), but there was no difference in the matched groups.

Conclusions: LNM does not affect the long-term survival of patients with pT1N1CRC after radical resection. Appropriate downstaging from stage IIIA may be a reasonable prospect for pT1N1CRC with a low recurrence factor.

Keywords: lymph node metastasis (LNM); pT1 colorectal cancer (pT1 CRC); propensity score matching (PSM).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2024-2611/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pathologic characteristics of patients with T1 colorectal cancer (hematoxylin-eosin staining, magnification 4×10). Dotted white line is muscularis mucosae. Ca, carcinoma; M, mucosa; MM, muscularis mucosae; MP, muscularis propria; SM, submucosa.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic of patient allocation/study design. CRC, colorectal cancer; LNM−, lymph node metastasis negative; LNM+, lymph node metastasis positive.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Survival outcomes in patients with pT1 CRC, without (LNM−) or with (LNM+) LNM, analyzed before and after PSM: (A) RFS before matching; (B) CSS before matching; (C) RFS after matching; and (D) CSS after matching. CRC, colorectal cancer; CSS, cancer-specific survival; LNM, lymph node metastasis; PSM, propensity score matching; RFS, relapse-free survival.

Similar articles

References

    1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:329-59. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borley NR, Wheeler JM. Management of early rectal cancer (Br J Surg 2008; 95: 409-423). Br J Surg 2008;95:1189-90; author reply 1190. 10.1002/bjs.6372 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kogler P, Kafka-Ritsch R, Öfner D, et al. Is limited surgery justified in the treatment of T1 colorectal cancer? Surg Endosc 2013;27:817-25. 10.1007/s00464-012-2518-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. 10.1245/s10434-009-0849-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. O'Sullivan B, Brierley J, Byrd D, et al. The TNM classification of malignant tumours-towards common understanding and reasonable expectations. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:849-51. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30438-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources