P1.065. Lymph Node Yield as a Prerequisite for Prognostic Superiority of Ratio-Based Nodal Staging in Esophageal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Validation Study

Clicks: 5
ID: 326231
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #104 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer Background Lymph node ratio (LNR) and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) have been proposed as yield-independent alternatives to pN staging for esophageal cancer. However, their prognostic superiority over pN has not been validated across institutions with varying lymph node (LN) yields. We hypothesized that the discriminative advantage of ratio-based metrics is conditional on adequate lymphadenectomy. Methods A total of 2,490 patients who underwent curative-intent esophagectomy across four specialized centers (2008–2020) were included. Centers A–D differed substantially in median LN yield (22–48 nodes). For each center, the prognostic discrimination of pN staging, LNR, and LODDS for overall survival (OS) was quantified using Harrell's C-statistic, with pairwise comparisons performed by DeLong's test. A threshold analysis evaluated the relationship between LN yield and the incremental C-statistic improvement (ΔC) of LODDS over pN across the full range of institutional yields. Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to test for interaction between LODDS and LN yield category. Results LODDS showed statistically significant superiority over pN only at Center A, a Japanese high-volume center with median LN yield of 48 (IQR 38–59) (C-statistic: 0.703 vs. 0.673; ΔC=+0.030; DeLong p=0.023). At Centers B, C, and D—where median LN yield ranged from 22 to 32—LODDS provided no measurable improvement and showed marginal decrements at the two lowest-yield centers (ΔC=−0.002 to −0.006; all p>0.58). Pooled analysis revealed no significant overall benefit (ΔC=+0.006; p=0.18). Threshold analysis identified a critical LN yield of approximately 25–30 nodes, below which LODDS offered no discriminatory advantage (ΔC≤0.001), and above which benefit increased monotonically with yield (ΔC=+0.031 at LNY≥45; interaction p=0.001). These findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses restricted to patients with ≥15 harvested nodes. Conclusion The prognostic superiority of LODDS over pN staging in esophageal cancer is not universal but yield-dependent: it emerges only when lymph node harvest is adequate, with a critical threshold of approximately 25–30 nodes. Ratio-based staging metrics should not be adopted as universal replacements for pN without first ensuring adequate lymphadenectomy quality. These findings have direct implications for the standardization of lymph node staging across institutions and health systems with divergent surgical practices.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203973060 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Simiao Lu, Xuefeng Leng
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.213
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.213
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.