Prognostic outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection in pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma; a retrospective cohort study
Reading File
Asking for Preferences
Searching PubMed
pancreaticoduodenectomy lymph node dissection prognosis pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Searching PubMed
pancreaticoduodenectomy periampullary adenocarcinoma outcomes survival
Reading Article
PMID: 33471373
Reading Article
PMID: 38602578
Searching PubMed
pancreaticoduodenectomy lymph node ratio harvest prognosis survival
Reading Article
PMID: 39180093
Searching PubMed
pancreatic cancer Whipple resection lymph node positive prognostic factor overall survival
Searching PubMed
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection prognostic factors lymph node metastasis retrospective
Searching PubMed
periampullary cancer surgery prognosis lymph node staging histology
Reading Article
PMID: 38271272
Reading Article
PMID: 31964383
Reading Article
PMID: 39765373
Here is a curated list of the most relevant PubMed studies related to your research topic, organized by evidence tier and relevance:
Related PubMed Studies: Pancreaticoduodenectomy, Lymph Node Dissection, and Prognostic Outcomes in Pancreatic/Periampullary Adenocarcinoma
Tier 1 - Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
1. Extended vs. Standard Lymph Node Resection (Cochrane Review)
Staerkle RF et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 33471373
The most directly relevant high-quality reference for your topic. Pooled 7 RCTs (843 patients). Key findings:
- No survival benefit from extended lymphadenectomy (ELA) over standard (SLA): log HR 0.12 (95% CI -3.06 to 3.31; P=0.94)
- ELA retrieved more lymph nodes (MD +11.09 nodes)
- ELA was associated with longer operating time (+50 min) and greater blood loss (+137 mL)
- No difference in R0 resection rates or postoperative mortality
- Conclusion: Evidence neither supports nor refutes extended lymphadenectomy as the standard of care
2. Lymph Node Metastases Patterns in Non-Pancreatic Periampullary Cancers (International Multicenter)
Uijterwijk BA et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38602578
Retrospective cohort + systematic review, 2,367 patients from 24 centers in 9 countries. Key findings:
- Pancreatobiliary-type ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) had higher nodal positivity (67.2%) vs. intestinal-type (44.8%)
- Stations 13 and 17 were universally most affected (90-95% of positive nodes)
- Distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) more frequently involved station 12; duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC) more often stations 6 and 14
- Underscores need for standardized lymphadenectomy per tumor type
3. Total Mesopancreatic Excision (TMpE) vs. Standard Pancreatoduodenectomy
da Silva LFL et al. World J Surg Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39180093
Systematic review + meta-analysis, 9 studies, 738 patients. Key findings:
- TMpE significantly improved R0 rate (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11-1.38)
- TMpE increased lymph node harvest (+7.27 nodes)
- Reduced overall recurrence (RR 0.53) and local recurrence (RR 0.39)
- No increase in postoperative complications, mortality, or hospital stay
- Lower pancreatic fistula rate (RR 0.66)
4. Para-aortic Lymph Node Metastases in Periampullary Cancer (Systematic Review + Cohort)
Hempel S et al. World J Surg Oncol. 2020. PMID: 31964383
164 patients + systematic review. Key findings:
- Para-aortic LN (PALN) positivity in 10.4% of periampullary cancers
- PALN+ correlated with larger tumor size and positive nodal stage
- Median OS: PALN+ 24.8 months vs. PALN- 29.5 months (not statistically significant)
- Evidence insufficient to recommend against resection in PALN+ cases
Tier 3 - Randomized Controlled Trials
5. Intraoperative Cytologic Sampling After PD for Pancreatic/Periampullary Adenocarcinoma
Papai E et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2022. PMID: 35213459
Implications for locoregional recurrence-free survival following resection.
Observational / Retrospective Cohort Studies
6. Minimum Lymph Node Examination Threshold in Resected PDAC
Goess R et al. BJS Open. 2024. PMID: 38271272
341 patients (retrospective, 2 European centers). Key findings:
- 73% had lymph node metastasis (N1/N2)
- Examining <21 lymph nodes was a significant negative predictor for survival on multivariate analysis
- At least 21 lymph nodes must be examined to avoid false N0 classification
- Directly applicable as a benchmark for your cohort
7. Robotic vs. Open/Laparoscopic PD for Ampullary Adenocarcinoma (International Multicenter, PSM)
Uijterwijk BA et al. HPB (Oxford). 2025. PMID: 39765373
1,862 patients from 35 centers in 11 countries, propensity-score matched. Key findings:
- No significant difference in 5-year OS between minimally invasive and open PD
- RPD yielded more lymph nodes than LPD (median 21 vs. 18; P=0.014)
- Minimally invasive PD appears oncologically non-inferior
8. Social Deprivation and Early Outcomes After Pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC (England)
Thorne TW et al. HPB (Oxford). 2025. PMID: 40846623
Population-level observational study on access and early surgical outcomes.
Key Prognostic Variables Consistently Identified Across Studies
| Variable | Prognostic Significance |
|---|---|
| Lymph node positivity (N stage) | Major negative prognostic factor |
| Lymph node ratio (LNR) / log odds (LODDS) | Better discriminators than raw node count |
| Number of examined lymph nodes (<21) | Inadequate staging; negative survival predictor |
| R0 vs. R1 resection margin | Survival impact well established |
| Tumor histologic subtype (intestinal vs. pancreatobiliary) | Pancreatobiliary type = worse outcomes |
| Para-aortic LN status | Associated with advanced disease; debated survival impact |
| Extended vs. standard lymphadenectomy | No survival benefit (Cochrane level evidence) |
| TMpE technique | Improved R0, reduced recurrence |
These studies provide the strongest available evidence base for a retrospective cohort study on this topic. The Cochrane review (PMID 33471373) and the BJS Open retrospective (PMID 38271272) are especially relevant as direct comparators or methodological benchmarks for your work.
Create a comparison table of lymph node prognostic indicators (LNR, LODDS, raw count) across studies
Searching PubMed
lymph node ratio LODDS pancreatic adenocarcinoma prognosis survival
Searching PubMed
lymph node ratio pancreaticoduodenectomy periampullary cancer overall survival
Reading Article
PMID: 30693420
Reading Article
PMID: 38353072
Reading Article
PMID: 39574167
Reading Article
PMID: 33649260
Reading Article
PMID: 38271272
Reading Article
PMID: 40283446
Searching PubMed
lymph node ratio pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection multivariate prognosis
Here is the full comparison table, built from extracted data across 7 peer-reviewed studies:
Comparison Table: Lymph Node Prognostic Indicators Across Studies
Pancreatic & Periampullary Adenocarcinoma After Pancreaticoduodenectomy
| Study | Year | PMID | Tumor Type | N | Indicator Evaluated | Optimal Threshold | Outcome Measure | Significant on MVA? | Conclusion / Best Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park N et al. (World J Surg Oncol) | 2024 | 39574167 | Ampullary (AoV) adenocarcinoma | 86 | Raw count (LNN), LNR, LODDS, N stage | LNN ≥2 | OS, DFS, DMFS | LNN ≥2 (OS: HR 2.10); LNR (DFS, DMFS only); N stage (pN2 only); LODDS not significant on MVA | Raw LNN ≥2 best overall predictor across all outcomes |
| Resende V et al. (J Gastrointest Surg) | 2024 | 38353072 | Ampullary cancer | 8,127 (NCDB) | AJCC N stage, LNR, LODDS, ELN count | ELN ≥20 (staging threshold) | OS | All significant on UVA; LODDS highest predictive accuracy (C-statistic) | LODDS best discriminator; ELN ≥20 required for reliable staging |
| Goess R et al. (BJS Open) | 2024 | 38271272 | Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma | 466 | Examined LN count (ELN) | ELN ≥21 | OS | ELN <21 = significant negative predictor (MVA) | Minimum 21 ELN needed; fewer = false N0 staging |
| Agalar C et al. (Pathol Oncol Res) | 2020 | 30693420 | Ampullary adenocarcinoma | 42 | LODDS | LODDS >−0.5 (LODDS4) = worst; LODDS ≤−1.5 (LODDS1) = best | OS | Yes — strong log-rank P=0.002 | LODDS subgroups strongly predict OS; correlated with perineural and microvascular invasion |
| Lee JW et al. (Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg) | 2021 | 33649260 | Ampulla of Vater cancer | 104 | Raw count (LNN), LNR | LNR >0.2; LNN ≥2 | OS | LNN ≥2 (MVA, independent); LNR >0.2 (UVA significant) | Raw count ≥2 and LNR >0.2 both predict poor OS; LNN ≥2 retained on MVA |
| De Pastena M et al. (J Clin Med) | 2025 | 40283446 | Non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma | 70 | LNR, raw count (LNN), station-specific nodes | ELN ≥25 (staging threshold); stations 8 & 12 involvement | OS, RFS | LNR independently associated with OS; stations 8 and 12 significant | LNR best independent predictor; station-level dissection matters |
| Uijterwijk BA et al. (Ann Surg Oncol) | 2024 | 38602578 | Non-pancreatic periampullary (AAC, dCCA, DAC) | 2,367 | Station-specific LN positivity (pattern analysis) | Stations 13 & 17 universal; stations 12, 6, 14 tumor-type specific | N/A (pattern, not survival) | Yes - tumor-type specific station involvement differed (P<0.005) | Station-specific dissection should be tailored by histologic subtype |
Summary: Head-to-Head Indicator Performance
| Indicator | Formula | Advantage | Disadvantage | Best Supported In |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw positive LN count (LNN) | Number of positive nodes | Simple; aligns with TNM (N1: 1-3 nodes; N2: ≥4) | Dependent on total nodes retrieved; susceptible to stage migration with low harvest | Park 2024, Lee 2021 |
| Lymph Node Ratio (LNR) | Positive LNs / Total examined LNs | Accounts for harvest size; less susceptible to stage migration | Affected by very low harvest (e.g. 0/1 = 0, distorted); less discriminating at extremes | De Pastena 2025, Lee 2021 |
| LODDS | log[(pos+0.5)/(neg+0.5)] | Handles zero-positive and zero-negative cases mathematically; best statistical discriminator in large cohorts | Complex; less clinically intuitive; not standardized across institutions | Resende 2024 (N=8,127), Agalar 2020 |
| Examined LN count (ELN) | Total nodes retrieved and examined | Benchmark of surgical quality and staging adequacy | Not a prognostic indicator per se - a quality threshold for valid staging | Goess 2024 (≥21), Resende 2024 (≥20), De Pastena 2025 (≥25) |
| AJCC N stage (N0/N1/N2) | pN0, pN1 (1-3), pN2 (≥4) | Standardized, universally applied | Binary transitions lose granularity; pN1 often non-significant on MVA | Park 2024 (pN2 significant, pN1 not) |
Key Takeaways for Your Retrospective Cohort
- No single indicator is universally superior - the best choice depends on sample size and harvest adequacy.
- LODDS performs best in large datasets (Resende 2024, N=8,127) due to its mathematical handling of node-negative cases.
- Raw count (LNN ≥2) is the most consistently significant predictor on multivariate analysis in smaller, single/multi-center cohorts.
- LNR >0.2 is a practical threshold with clinical relevance, particularly when harvest varies across surgeons/centers.
- A minimum of 20-25 ELN is required for any indicator to be reliably interpretable - below this threshold, all indicators are biased toward false N0 classification.
- Reporting all three (LNN, LNR, LODDS) in your cohort and comparing their C-statistics or AUC would be a methodologic strength of your paper.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.