Should lymph node retrieval be a surgical quality indicator in colon cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
648 Background: Adequate lymph node harvest is easily obtained and is necessary for proper staging of colorectal cancer, making it an attractive measure of surgical quality for policy makers. However, achieving an adequate lymph node harvest requires a multidisciplinary effort. The purpose of this study was to determine if it is appropriate to use this measure as a surgical quality indicator for individual surgeons. Methods: The study was undertaken at a high volume center with standardized colon cancer specimen processes. The charts of 1,138 consecutive segmental colon cancer surgeries performed between 2002 and 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was inadequate lymph node retrieval for colon cancer surgery defined by fewer than 12 lymph nodes on pathology. Predictor variables were based on patient, surgeon, pathology and tumor related factors. Univariate analysis was performed on all potential predictor variables, followed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: 841 cases (69.0%) achieved adequate lymph node harvest, while 377 (31.0%) were inadequate. Factors on univariate analysis associated with inadequate lymph node harvest were specimen length (p<0.0001), tumor location (p<0.0001), and T-stage (0.0015), all of which remained significant multivariate logistic regression. The average specimen length differed by 3.6 cm between non-adequate and adequate specimens. When broken down by procedure, resection length did not vary significantly between high and low volume surgeons or between colorectal and non-colorectal surgeons. Furthermore when surgeons were ranked according to their success rate of >12 LN retrieval, there was no difference between surgeons in mean specimen length. Conclusions: In a high-volume, tertiary care centre that uses standardized practices for specimen processing, 31% of cases yielded fewer than 12 lymph nodes. Factors relating to the patient and tumor were the primary predictors of a successful outcome and there was no association between surgeon-related factor and adequate LN retrieval. Caution should be used when considering LN harvest as a surgical quality indicator for individual surgeons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".