Tumor micrometastases in mesorectal lymph nodes and their clinical significance in patients with rectal caner

Table 1 Size of lymph nodes (LNs) and status of tumor metastases and micrometastases

Size of LNs (mm)	No. of LNs				Positive ratio (%)
	Total	HE-positive	IHC-positive	Sum of positive
≤ 2	92	4	3	7	7.6b
2-5	274	56	28	84	30.7
≥ 5	182	54	8	62	34.1d
Total	548	114	39	153	27.9

^bP < 0.01, vs 2-5;

^dP < 0.01, vs ≤ 2.

Table 2 Clinicopathological features of five recurrent patients with lower rectal cancer

Case No.	Sex	Age (yr)	Characteristics of tumor		No. of LNs			Site of recurrence	Outcome
			Differentiation	Invasion	Total	M	MM
1	Female	35	Well	Muscle	15	3	2	Lung	Surviving
2	Female	65	Poor	Serosa	22	22	0	Pelvis + liver	Dead
3	Male	50	Moderate	Muscle	27	0	3	Pelvis	Surviving
4	Male	45	Poor	Serosa	30	17	4	Pelvis	Dead
5	Male	32	Poor	Muscle	21	5	5	Pelvis	Surviving

LNs: lymph nodes; M: metastatic; MM: micrometastatic.

Table 3 Comparison of recurrence between patients with different nodal status

Variables	HE-positive		HE-negative		Total
	IHC-positive	IHC-negative	IHC-positive	IHC-negative
No. of case	13	8	5	4	30
Recurrence	3	1	1	0	5
Recurrence rate (%)	23.1	12.5	20	0	16.7

Table 4 Comparison of nodal status between recurrent and non-recurrent group

Grouping	LNs (mean ± SD)				Positive ratio (%)
	Total	HE-positive	IHC-positive	Sum of positive
Recurrent group	23.0 ± 5.8	9.4 ± 9.6	2.8 ± 1.9	12.2 ± 8.9	53.0
Non-recurrent group	17.0 ± 8.2	2.6 ± 2.5	1.0 ± 1.2	3.6 ± 3.0	21.4
P	0.135	0.003	0.01	0.000	0.000