Which Is the Most Suitable Classification for Colorectal Cancer, Log Odds, the Number or the Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes?

Yong-Xi Song, Peng Gao, Zhen-Ning Wang, Lin-Lin Tong, Ying-Ying Xu, Zhe Sun, Cheng-Zhong Xing and Hui-Mian Xu

PLOS ONE, 2011, vol. 6, issue 12, 1-7

Abstract: Objective: The aim of the current study was to investigate which is the most suitable classification for colorectal cancer, log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) classification or the classifications based on the number of positive lymph nodes (pN) and positive lymph node ratio(LNR) in a Chinese single institutional population. Design: Clinicopathologic and prognostic data of 1297 patients with colorectal cancer were retrospectively studied. The log-rank statistics, Cox's proportional hazards model, the Nagelkerke R2 index and a Harrell's C statistic were used. Results: Univariate and three-step multivariate analyses identified that LNR was a significant prognostic factor and LNR classification was superior to both the pN and LODDS classifications. Moreover, the results of the Nagelkerke R2 index (0.130) and a Harrell's C statistic (0.707) of LNR showed that LNR and LODDS classifications were similar and LNR was a little better than the other two classifications. Furthermore, for patients in each LNR classification, prognosis was homologous between those in different pN or LODDS classifications. However, for patients in pN1a, pN1b, LODDS2 and LODDS3 classifications, significant differences in survival were observed among patients in different LNR classifications. Conclusions: For patients with colorectal cancer, the LNR classification is more suitable than pN and LODDS classifications for prognostic assessment in a Chinese single institutional population.

Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028937 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 28937&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0028937

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028937

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().