Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 452

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer

Pawlik, Timothy M., Gleisner, Ana L., Cameron, John L., Winter, Jordan M., Assumpcao, Lia, Lillemoe, Keith D., Wolfgang, Christopher, Hruban, Ralph H., Schulick, Richard D., Yeo, Charles J., Choti, Michael A.·2007·Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND The presence or absence of lymph node metastases is known to be an important prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer. Few studies have investigated the ratio of the number of lymph nodes harboring metastatic cancer to the total number of lymph nodes examined (lymph node ratio [LNR]) with regard to outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal cancer of the pancreas. METHODS Between 1995 and 2005, a total of 905 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Demographics, operative data, number of lymph nodes evaluated, number of lymph nodes with metastatic carcinoma, LNR, pathologic margin status, and long-term survival were analyzed. RESULTS There were 187 (20.7%) of the 905 patients who had negative peripancreatic lymph nodes (N0), whereas 718 (79.3%) of the 905 patients had lymph node metastases (N1). The median number of lymph nodes evaluated in the N0 group was 15 versus 18 in the N1 group (P = .12). At median follow-up of 24 months, the median survival for all patients was 17.4 months, and the 5-year actuarial survival rate was 16.1%. Patients with lymph node metastases had a shorter median overall survival (16.5 months) compared with patients with negative lymph nodes (25.3 months; P = .001). Compared with the total number of lymph nodes examined or total number of lymph node metastases, LNR was the most compelling predictor of survival. As the LNR increased, median overall survival decreased (LNR = 0, 25.3 months; LNR > 0 to 0.2, 21.7 months; LNR > 0.2 to 0.4, 15.3 months; LNR > 0.4, 12.2 months; P = .001). After adjusting for other factors associated with survival, LNR remained an independent predictor of overall survival (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS After pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, LNR was one of the most powerful predictors of survival. LNR should be considered when stratifying patients in future clinical trials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2006.12.013

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 452

Metadata

Authors
Pawlik, T. M., Gleisner, A. L., Cameron, J. L., Winter, J. M., Assumpcao, L., Lillemoe, K. D., Wolfgang, C., Hruban, R. H., Schulick, R. D., Yeo, C. J., & Choti, M. A.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
141
Issue
5
Pages
610-618
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967283079
Cited by
452
References
0
FWCI
12.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.surg.2006.12.013
The paper
Pawlik, T. M., Gleisner, A. L., Cameron, J. L., Winter, J. M., Assumpcao, L., Lillemoe, K. D., Wolfgang, C., Hruban, R. H., Schulick, R. D., Yeo, C. J., & Choti, M. A. (2007). Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2006.12.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.