Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Lymph node-based prognostics: limitations with individualized cancer treatment.

Wayne S Kendal1

  • 1Division of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Center, and The Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. wkendal@ottawahospital.on.ca

American Journal of Clinical Oncology
|June 7, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Outcomes at a Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics·2018
Same author

Age Bias in Time From Diagnosis Comparisons of Prostate Cancer Treatment.

American journal of clinical oncology·2016
Same author

Role of fine-needle aspiration in the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: utility and limitations in light of the new World Health Organization classification.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2014
Same author

Oligometastasis as a predictor for occult disease.

Mathematical biosciences·2014
Same author

Pancreatectomy Versus Conservative Management for Pancreatic Cancer: A Question of Lead-time Bias.

American journal of clinical oncology·2013
Same author

Comparative risk factors for accidental and suicidal death in cancer patients.

Crisis·2012

Individualizing cancer therapy using lymph node counts is unreliable due to statistical variability. This study suggests that clinicopathological prognostics are more useful for large patient groups than for individual cancer cases.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Biostatistics
  • Cancer Prognostics

Background:

  • Clinicians commonly personalize adjuvant cancer therapy based on prognostic factors like lymph node involvement.
  • This practice assumes that individual patient data, despite statistical variability, offers useful insights for treatment decisions.
  • The scientific validity of using clinicopathological factors for individualizing cancer therapy is examined.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the scientific basis for individualizing cancer therapy using clinicopathological factors.
  • To determine the reliability of lymph node status and other factors in predicting individual patient outcomes.
  • To assess the utility of current prognostic models in tailoring cancer treatment for individual cases.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of survival data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
  • Inclusion of 19,107 breast, 4,234 gastric, and 4,058 rectal cancer cases.
  • Application of Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportionate hazard models to determine sample size requirements for risk group discrimination.

    • Main Results:

    • Lymph node involvement emerged as the strongest prognostic factor across all three cancer types.
    • Tumor diameter and grade were also significant prognostic indicators.
    • Discriminating between high and low-risk groups required sample sizes of 30 to 200 cases, indicating limited individual-level prognostic power.

    Conclusions:

    • Clinicopathological prognostics, particularly lymph node status, are limited by population heterogeneity, restricting their individual applicability.
    • Prognostications at the individual level were found to be uninformative and potentially misleading.
    • Tailoring cancer treatment based on these individual prognostics is a specious practice; a categorical approach using randomized trial data is recommended.