Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2026-03.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with low rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 41(6); 2025 > Article
Original Article
Colorectal cancer
 Predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with low rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment
Riki Ohnoorcid, Haruka Oiorcid, Soichiro Natsumeorcid, Kazuki Kawasakiorcid, Yuichiro Yoshiokaorcid, Nao Kakizawaorcid, Junko Kishikawaorcid, Toshiya Nagasakiorcid
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(6):545-553.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00675.0096
Published online: December 29, 2025

Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan

Correspondence to: Toshiya Nagasaki, MD, PhD Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina, Saitama 362-0806, Japan Email: nagasaki.toshiya@saitama-pho.jp
• Received: May 23, 2025   • Revised: July 7, 2025   • Accepted: August 3, 2025

© 2025 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 829 Views
  • 44 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
  • 1 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    This study aimed to identify predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM) and assess prognostic factors in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer (LALRC), with the goal of informing optimal treatment strategies for LALRC.
  • Methods
    We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological data from patients with LALRC who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment between 2014 and 2023. The radiological criterion for LLNM was a short-axis diameter of ≥6 mm on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
  • Results
    Of 163 patients, 27 (16.6%) had pathological LLNM (pLLNM). Among 130 patients preoperatively classified as LLNM-negative, 5 (3.8%) were found to have pLLNM. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that meeting the radiological LLNM criterion independently predicted pLLNM (odds ratio, 53.000; P<0.001). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this criterion were 90.2%, 81.5%, 91.9%, 66.7%, and 96.2%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, pLLNM was an independent risk factor for 3‑year relapse‑free survival. MRI‑detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) was independently associated with 3‑year relapse‑free survival, local recurrence‑free survival, and distant recurrence‑free survival.
  • Conclusion
    These radiological criteria may help clinicians develop personalized treatment plans for patients with LALRC. The high negative predictive value and specificity of LLNM assessment can assist in avoiding overtreatment in appropriate patients. Further evaluation is needed to define optimal management for mrEMVI‑positive cases.
  • Keywords: Rectal cancer; Both lateral lymph node dissection; Lateral lymph node metastasis
The treatment strategies for patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer (LALRC) are quite different between Japan and other countries. Preoperative treatment for LALRC is not common in Japan. Japanese guidelines recommend total mesorectal excision (TME) and bilateral lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) without preoperative treatment, given the reported 15% to 25% incidence of LLN metastasis (LLNM) in LALRC and the poor prognosis of patients with pathological LLNM (pLLNM) [1–6].
In Western countries, preoperative treatment (radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy [CRT], and total neoadjuvant therapy [TNT]) followed by TME is the standard of care for rectal cancer. LLND is not regarded as a routine surgical procedure because it has been reported to be associated with higher postoperative complication rates and not to improve overall survival or distant recurrence‑free survival (DRFS). However, a high rate of lateral local recurrence (LR) has been demonstrated in patients with enlarged LLNs after CRT [7–10].
In contrast to international practice, LLND is performed for patients with LALRC without preoperative treatment at our institution. Although we could not evaluate outcomes in patients with LALRC who underwent preoperative treatment, we were able to determine the presence or absence of pLLNM in these cases. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical predictors of pLLNM and other prognostic factors in patients with LALRC.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Saitama Cancer Center (No. 1969). All patients provided written informed consent.
Study design
Our standard treatment strategy for LALRC was TME with bilateral LLND without preoperative therapy. LALRC was defined as pathological stage II (T3–4, N0) or stage III (any T, N1–2) rectal adenocarcinoma with the lower tumor margin located below the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative CRT or systemic chemotherapy was reserved for patients with circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. CRM involvement, including mesorectal fascia involvement and tumor invasion into adjacent structures, was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who received preoperative treatment and those with multiple synchronous or metachronous cancers, familial adenomatous polyposis, or anal fistula cancer were excluded from analysis.
The following variables were retrospectively analyzed: sex, age at surgery, tumor distance from the anal verge (AV), preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, preoperative serum carbohydrate antigen 19‑9 (CA19‑9) level, clinical T category, clinical mesorectal lymph node metastasis (cMLNM), clinical LLNM (cLLNM), clinical stage, clinical CRM status, tumor size, histological type, MRI‑detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI), pathological T category, pathological MLNM (pMLNM), pLLNM, pathological stage, pathological CRM status, and whether postoperative treatment was administered. The depth of tumor invasion and lymph node size were determined by MRI. In line with a previous report, the radiological criterion for cMLNM and cLLNM was a short‑axis diameter of ≥6 mm (Fig. 1A) [11]. mrEMVI was classified according to the MRI‑EMVI scoring system [12], with scores of 0–2 defined as mrEMVI‑negative and scores of 3–4 defined as mrEMVI‑positive (Fig. 1B). Predictors of pLLNM were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.
Postoperative surveillance included measurement of serum CEA and CA19‑9 levels every 3 months for the first 3 years and every 6 months thereafter. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was performed every 6 months, and total colonoscopy was performed annually. Long‑term outcomes were assessed as RFS, LR‑free survival (LRFS), and DRFS. RFS was defined as the interval from the date of operation to any relapse. LR was defined as recurrence within the pelvis, and distant recurrence (DR) as recurrence outside the pelvis. For LRFS, events included LR even when DR occurred simultaneously or earlier.
Statistical analysis
The proportion of patients with pLLNM was analyzed using the chi‑square or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. Survival analyses for RFS, LRFS, and DRFS were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log‑rank test. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Variables with P<0.10 in univariate analyses were subsequently entered into multivariate models. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of pLLNM. To assess predictors of long‑term survival, multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model were conducted, with results reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University).
Between January 2014 and December 2023, a total of 233 patients with LALRC underwent TME plus bilateral LLND and were diagnosed with pathological stage II or III disease. Preoperative treatment was performed in 48 patients, who were excluded from this analysis. In addition, 18 patients with multiple primary cancers, 3 with anal fistula cancer, and 1 with familial adenomatous polyposis were excluded. Consequently, 163 patients with LALRC who underwent LLND without preoperative treatment were analyzed (Fig. 2). Patient demographics and tumor characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The mean tumor distance from the AV was 47.3 mm. Because of advanced age, severe comorbidity, or patient refusal, 31 patients with clinically positive CRM status did not receive preoperative treatment. pLLNM was confirmed in 27 patients (16.6%). Unilateral and bilateral pLLNM were identified in 19 and 8 patients, respectively. Nineteen patients had both pLLNM and pMLNM, whereas the remaining 8 did not have pMLNM. mrEMVI was observed in 48 patients (29.4%). A total of 93 patients had pathological stage III disease, of whom 71 (76.3%) received postoperative treatment; 2 of 70 patients with pathological stage II disease received postoperative treatment.
Table 2 shows the association between preoperative clinical factors and pLLNM. In univariate analysis, cMLNM‑positive and cLLNM‑positive status were significantly associated with pLLNM. Multivariate analysis revealed that cLLNM‑positive status was an independent predictor of pLLNM (odds ratio, 53.000; 95% CI, 15.100–185.00; P<0.001). Using our radiological criterion, 33 patients were classified as cLLNM‑positive, and of these patients, pLLNM was confirmed in 22 (66.7%). Among 130 patients classified as cLLNM‑negative, 5 (3.8%) were found to have pLLNM. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of the cLLNM criterion were 90.2%, 81.5%, 91.9%, 66.7%, and 96.2%, respectively (Fig. 3). Moreover, among 71 patients who were both cLLNM‑negative and cMLNM‑negative, pLLNM was confirmed in 2 (2.8%). Of 59 patients with cMLNM‑positive and cLLNM‑negative status, 3 (5.1%) were diagnosed with pLLNM.
With a median follow‑up of 46.6 months (range, 0.5–124.9 months), 36 patients developed DR and 12 developed LR. Of the 12 patients with LR, 7 recurred in the lateral pelvic region, 3 in the presacral area, and 2 at the anastomotic site. Among the 27 patients with pLLNM, 3 had LR in the lateral pelvic area and 1 in the presacral area. Among the 5 patients who were cLLNM‑negative but had pLLNM, none developed LR and 4 developed DR. The 3‑year RFS, LRFS, and DRFS were 72.7%, 91.2%, and 77.6%, respectively. Table 3 shows correlations between clinicopathological factors and 3‑year outcomes. In univariate analyses, sex and age were not associated with prognosis. Tumor distance from the AV, pathological T category, pMLNM, pLLNM, pathological CRM‑positivity, and histological type were significantly associated with 3‑year RFS and DRFS. Preoperative serum CEA level was significantly associated with RFS and LRFS. mrEMVI was significantly associated with 3‑year RFS, LRFS, and DRFS. Table 4 presents the multivariate analyses of prognostic factors. Tumor distance from the AV was an independent predictor of 3‑year RFS and DRFS. pLLNM was independently associated with RFS. mrEMVI was an independent predictor of RFS, LRFS, and DRFS. Histological type was independently associated with DRFS.
Our data indicated that an LLN short‑axis diameter ≥6 mm on MRI was strongly associated with pLLNM and yielded high NPV and specificity. Patients with LALRC who had pLLNM experienced poorer prognosis than those without pLLNM. Therefore, elucidating predictors of pLLNM is important. A strength of this study is that the accuracy of cLLNM was verified histopathologically in all cases.
In our cohort, pLLNM was confirmed in 16.6% of patients with LALRC who underwent TME plus LLND without preoperative treatment, and this incidence is comparable to previous reports [1–5]. Multiple studies have shown that LLN short‑axis diameter is a valuable predictor of LLNM [13]. A recent Japanese multicenter prospective study identified ≥6 mm as the optimal cutoff by receiver operating characteristic analysis and confirmed it as an independent risk factor for LLNM [11]. Our results corroborate the diagnostic performance of this cutoff. Notably, the NPV (96.2%) and specificity (91.9%) were very high. Thus, the current radiological criterion for cLLNM may help prevent overtreatment in patients unlikely to harbor LLNM. However, LLN size alone may be insufficient for maximal accuracy. Morphologic MRI features, such as irregular borders and mixed signal intensity, can improve diagnostic accuracy [14]. Some studies have also shown that combining mrEMVI status with LLN size enhances performance [15, 16], and a validated nomogram has been developed incorporating LLN and perirectal lymph node short‑axis diameters, EMVI status, and other variables [17]. As noted in our study, pLLNM occurred in 2.8% of patients with both negative cLLNM and cMLNM, suggesting that the absence of enlarged MLNs may aid pLLNM prediction. These findings are useful for refining preoperative risk stratification.
Treatment strategies for LALRC should be individualized according to LLN status, since LLND is associated with longer operative time, greater blood loss, male sexual dysfunction, and urinary dysfunction compared with TME alone [18, 19]. LLND is not commonly performed outside Japan. Worldwide, the standard of care for rectal cancer is neoadjuvant CRT followed by TME without LLND. Patients with LALRC and enlarged LLNs who undergo neoadjuvant CRT followed by TME alone have been reported to experience significantly higher lateral LR rates [7–10], likely because pLLNM is identified in 24.6% to 65.8% of patients with enlarged LLNs after CRT [20–22]. LLN metastases may not be completely eradicated by preoperative CRT. Our results showed that 3‑year RFS and DRFS were significantly worse in patients with pLLNM than in those without pLLNM despite LLND. In this study, LR also occurred in regions outside the LLN area. Moreover, 11.1% of patients with pLLNM had LR in the lateral pelvic area, a rate higher than in patients without pLLNM. These findings suggest that LLND alone is insufficient to prevent pelvic recurrence and may not fully eliminate LLN recurrence in patients with pLLNM. A previous report showed that LR rates were similar between Japanese patients who underwent TME plus LLND and Western patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by TME without LLND [23]. Although our data do not include outcomes for patients who received preoperative CRT, long‑term results, including overall survival, RFS, LRFS, and lateral LR, reportedly improve in pLLNM when neoadjuvant CRT is followed by TME plus LLND [22, 24, 25]. Collectively, these reports indicate that combining neoadjuvant CRT with LLND could be a promising strategy for LALRC with enlarged LLNs.
The necessity of LLND for LALRC without enlarged LLNs remains unclear. A Japanese multicenter randomized controlled trial (JCOG0212) tested the noninferiority of TME alone versus TME with LLND in patients without enlarged LLNs. Although noninferiority was not proven, 5‑year overall survival, RFS, and LRFS were similar between the groups [26, 27]. In our series, using the present radiological criterion, 5 of 130 cLLNM‑negative patients (3.8%) had pLLNM. Given the adverse short‑term effects of LLND, the procedure can be omitted in cLLNM‑negative LALRC.
Our study also showed that mrEMVI was an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. By Kaplan-Meier estimates, 3‑year RFS, LRFS, and DRFS were significantly worse in mrEMVI‑positive than in mrEMVI‑negative patients (29.1% vs. 83.0%, 75.8% vs. 95.8%, and 50.8% vs. 85.3%, respectively). The presence of EMVI is mechanistically linked to a higher risk of DR due to hematogenous spread [11, 28], and mrEMVI has been associated with increased CRM involvement and pelvic sidewall dissemination [29,30]. A previous report demonstrated that regression of mrEMVI after CRT is associated with improved outcomes [31]. Therefore, even in cLLNM‑negative patients, multimodal therapy should be considered for those who are mrEMVI‑positive. In this study, 71 of 93 patients (76.3%) with pathological stage III disease received postoperative chemotherapy after bilateral LLND, and postoperative chemotherapy was not associated with improved prognosis. Recently, TNT has been reported to increase chemotherapy completion and improve outcomes in rectal cancer [32–35]. Further research is needed to define optimal strategies for LALRC with this prognostic risk factor.
In addition to mrEMVI and pLLNM, tumor distance from the AV (within 50 mm) and poor histological type were independently associated with poor prognosis in multivariate analyses. In the total cohort, 41 patients had none of these risk factors and experienced neither LR nor DR. These patients might not require preoperative therapy or LLND.
Limitations
This study has limitations. First, it was a retrospective, single‑center analysis with a limited sample size; thus, selection bias is possible. Second, 14 patients (8.6%) had less than 1 year of follow‑up; longer observation is needed to fully evaluate the prognostic factors identified here. Third, detailed morphologic MRI findings of LLNs and pathological confirmation of EMVI were not evaluated. We focused on LLN size and EMVI findings on MRI, and these simple features were clearly associated with prognosis. Fourth, because our treatment strategy differs from international standards, the results should be interpreted with caution. Despite these limitations, we believe our findings may assist with treatment selection for patients with LALRC.
Conclusions
Our radiological criterion for cLLNM was independently associated with pLLNM, with very high NPV and specificity. Accurate pretreatment diagnosis is essential to determine appropriate treatment strategies for patients with LALRC.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: all authors; Data curation: all authors; Formal analysis: all authors; Investigation: all authors; Methodology: all authors; Writing–original draft: all authors; Writing–review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fig. 1.
Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings. (A) Clinical lateral lymph node metastasis positive (arrow). (B) Magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion positive (arrow).
ac-2025-00675-0096f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Patient inclusion flowchart. TME, total mesorectal excision; LLND, lateral lymph node dissection.
ac-2025-00675-0096f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Prediction of lateral lymph node metastasis based on lymph node size. cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
ac-2025-00675-0096f3.jpg
Table 1.
Patient demographics and tumor characteristics (n=163)
Characteristic Value
Sex
 Female 45 (27.6)
 Male 118 (72.4)
Age (yr) 64.8±10.7
Tumor distance from AV (mm) 47.3±18.2
Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 15.6±37.3
Preoperative serum CA19-9 (U/mL) 27.4±82.2
Clinical T category
 T2 3 (1.8)
 T3 134 (82.2)
 T4 26 (16.0)
cMLNM
 Negative 79 (48.5)
 Positive 84 (51.5)
cLLNM
 Negative 130 (79.8)
 Positive 33 (20.2)
Clinical stage
 II 72 (44.2)
 III 91 (55.8)
Clinical CRM
 Negative 128 (78.5)
 Positive 35 (21.5)
Tumor size (mm) 52.8±19.9
Histological type
 Well/moderately differentiated 154 (94.5)
 Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 9 (5.5)
mrEMVI
 Negative 115 (70.6)
 Positive 48 (29.4)
Pathological T category
 T1b, T2 11 (6.7)
 T3 138 (84.7)
 T4 14 (8.6)
pMLNM
 Negative 80 (49.1)
 Positive 83 (50.9)
pLLNM
 Negative 136 (83.4)
 Positive 27 (16.6)
Pathological stage
 II 70 (42.9)
 III 93 (57.1)
Pathological CRM
 Negative 149 (91.4)
 Positive 14 (8.6)
Postoperative chemotherapy
 Yes 73 (44.8)
 No 90 (55.2)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; cMLNM, clinical mesorectal lymph node metastasis; cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion; pMLNM, pathological mesorectal lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis.

Table 2.
The association between pLLNM and preoperative clinical factors (n=163)
Factor pLLNM Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Negative (n=136) Positive (n=27) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
Sex 0.816
 Female 37 8
 Male 99 19
Age (yr) 0.531
 <65 60 10
 ≥65 76 17
Tumor distance from AV (mm) 0.184
 >50 51 6
 ≤50 85 21
Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 0.294
 <5 67 10
 ≥5 69 17
Preoperative serum CA19–9 (U/mL) 0.084 0.257
 <37 124 21 1 (Reference)
 ≥37 12 6 2.618 (0.495–13.889)
Clinical T category 0.294
 T2 2 1
 T3 114 20
 T4 20 6
cMLNM 0.036 0.643
 Negative 71 8 1 (Reference)
 Positive 65 19 1.371 (0.361–5.208)
cLLNM <0.001 <0.001
 Negative 125 5 1 (Reference)
 Positive 11 22 53.000 (15.100–185.000)
Clinical CRM 0.305
 Negative 109 19
 Positive 27 8
mrEMVI 0.069 0.242
 Negative 100 15 1 (Reference)
 Positive 36 12 2.170 (0.593–7.950)
Histological type 0.645
 Well/moderately differentiated 129 25
 Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 7 2

pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; cMLNM, clinical mesorectal lymph node metastasis; cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

Table 3.
The correlation between clinicopathological factors and 3-year prognosis (n=163)
Factor No. of patients RFS (%) P-value LRFS (%) P-value DRFS (%) P-value
Sex 0.547 0.638 0.640
 Female 45 71.5 91.4 76.5
 Male 118 68.7 88.8 75.9
Age (yr) 0.107 0.838 0.095
 <65 70 76.4 89.7 82.6
 ≥65 93 63.9 91.8 70.5
Tumor distance from AV (mm) <0.001 0.149 <0.001
 >50 57 93.2 95.2 93.5
 ≤50 106 57.1 88.4 67.2
Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 0.024 0.036 0.202
 <5 77 80.6 96.5 81.4
 ≥5 86 60.9 85.8 71.7
Preoperative serum CA19–9 (U/mL) 0.054 0.424 0.141
 <37 145 71.0 91.1 77.0
 ≥37 18 56.7 86.7 66.6
Pathological T category 0.038 0.187 0.009
 T1b–3 149 71.6 91.3 78.5
 T4 14 43.1 71.8 43.1
pMLNM 0.017 0.332 0.004
 Negative 80 79.6 88.4 87.0
 Positive 83 61.2 92.4 61.7
pLLNM <0.001 0.056 <0.001
 Negative 136 75.8 92.4 81.1
 Positive 27 28.2 80.7 49.0
Pathological CRM <0.001 0.348 <0.001
 Negative 149 72.5 90.0 79.4
 Positive 14 30.5 100 32.5
mrEMVI <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
 Negative 115 83.0 95.8 85.3
 Positive 48 29.1 75.8 50.8
Histological type <0.001 0.484 <0.001
 Well/moderately differentiated 154 71.9 91.0 78.8
 Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 9 33.3 80.0 33.3
Postoperative treatment 0.852 0.973 0.625
 No 90 70.2 91.5 75.2
 Yes 73 69.2 90.1 77.6

RFS, recurrence-free survival; LRFS, local recurrence-free survival; DRFS, distant recurrence-free survival; AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; pMLNM, pathological mesorectal lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

Table 4.
Multivariate analyses of the predictive factors for 3-year prognosis
Factor Recurrence-free survival Local recurrence-free survival Distant recurrence-free survival
HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Tumor distance from AV (mm) 0.009 0.037
 >50 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
 ≤50 4.196 (1.437–12.250) 3.172 (1.071–9.395)
pLLNM 0.047 0.120 0.224
 Negative 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
 Positive 2.086 (1.010–4.308) 2.614 (0.779–8.772) 1.626 (0.743–3.562)
mrEMVI <0.001 0.007 0.012
 Negative 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
 Positive 3.838 (1.939–7.600) 5.225 (1.561–17.490) 2.601 (1.230–5.502)
Histological type 0.039
 Well/moderately differentiated 1 (Reference)
 Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 2.604 (1.048–6.494)

The table includes significant risk factors alone, apart from pLLNM.

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; AV, anal verge; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

  • 1. Ueno M, Oya M, Azekura K, Yamaguchi T, Muto T. Incidence and prognostic significance of lateral lymph node metastasis in patients with advanced low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005;92:756–63. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 2. Sugihara K, Kobayashi H, Kato T, Mori T, Mochizuki H, Kameoka S, et al. Indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:1663–72. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Fujita S, Yamamoto S, Akasu T, Moriya Y. Risk factors of lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in advanced rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009;24:1085–90. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 4. Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Kato T, Mori T, Kameoka S, Shirouzu K, et al. Outcomes of surgery alone for lower rectal cancer with and without pelvic sidewall dissection. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:567–76. ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Kanemitsu Y, Komori K, Shida D, Ochiai H, Tsukamoto S, Kinoshita T, et al. Potential impact of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for low rectal cancer on prognoses and local control: a comparison of 2 high-volume centers in Japan that employ different policies concerning LLND. Surgery 2017;162:303–14. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Fujita S, Yamamoto S, Akasu T, Moriya Y. Prognostic factors of rectal cancer patients with lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis. Hepatogastroenterology 2012;59:2494–7. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Kusters M, Slater A, Muirhead R, Hompes R, Guy RJ, Jones OM, et al. What to do with lateral nodal disease in low locally advanced rectal cancer? A call for further reflection and research. Dis Colon Rectum 2017;60:577–85. ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Kim TH, Jeong SY, Choi DH, Kim DY, Jung KH, Moon SH, et al. Lateral lymph node metastasis is a major cause of locoregional recurrence in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and curative resection. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:729–37. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 9. Kim TG, Park W, Choi DH, Park HC, Kim SH, Cho YB, et al. Factors associated with lateral pelvic recurrence after curative resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2014;29:193–200. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 10. Kim MJ, Kim TH, Kim DY, Kim SY, Baek JY, Chang HJ, et al. Can chemoradiation allow for omission of lateral pelvic node dissection for locally advanced rectal cancer? J Surg Oncol 2015;111:459–64. ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Kasai S, Shiomi A, Shimizu H, Aoba M, Kinugasa Y, Miura T, et al. Risk factors and development of machine learning diagnostic models for lateral lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: multicentre study. BJS Open 2024;8:zrae073.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 12. Smith NJ, Barbachano Y, Norman AR, Swift RI, Abulafi AM, Brown G. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging-detected extramural vascular invasion in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008;95:229–36. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Komori K, Fujita S, Mizusawa J, Kanemitsu Y, Ito M, Shiomi A, et al. Predictive factors of pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients without clinical lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis (clinical stage II/III): the analysis of data from the clinical trial (JCOG0212). Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;45:336–40. ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, Newcombe RG, Radcliffe AG, Dallimore NS, et al. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2003;227:371–7. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Abe T, Yasui M, Imamura H, Matsuda C, Nishimura J, Haraguchi N, et al. Combination of extramural venous invasion and lateral lymph node size detected with magnetic resonance imaging is a reliable biomarker for lateral lymph node metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2022;20:5.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 16. Hamabe A, Ishii M, Onodera K, Okita K, Nishidate T, Okuya K, et al. MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion potentiates the risk for pathological metastasis to the lateral lymph nodes in rectal cancer. Surg Today 2021;51:1583–93. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Sumii A, Hida K, Sakai Y, Hoshino N, Nishizaki D, Akagi T, et al. Establishment and validation of a nomogram for predicting potential lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in low rectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2022;27:1173–9. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 18. Fujita S, Akasu T, Mizusawa J, Saito N, Kinugasa Y, Kanemitsu Y, et al. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II or stage III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): results from a multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:616–21. ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Georgiou P, Tan E, Gouvas N, Antoniou A, Brown G, Nicholls RJ, et al. Extended lymphadenectomy versus conventional surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1053–62. ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Matsueda K, Konishi T, Fujimoto Y, Nagayama S, et al. Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with advanced low rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy based on pretreatment imaging. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:189–96. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 21. Ishihara S, Kawai K, Tanaka T, Kiyomatsu T, Hata K, Nozawa H, et al. Oncological outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 2017;60:469–76. ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Ogura A, Konishi T, Cunningham C, Garcia-Aguilar J, Iversen H, Toda S, et al. Neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy with total mesorectal excision only is not sufficient to prevent lateral local recurrence in enlarged nodes: results of the multicenter lateral node study of patients with low cT3/4 rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:33–43. ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Nagasaki T, Akiyoshi T, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, Nagayama S, Fukunaga Y, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy might improve the prognosis of patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer and lateral pelvic lymph node metastases. World J Surg 2017;41:876–83. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 24. Akiyoshi T, Toda S, Tominaga T, Oba K, Tomizawa K, Hanaoka Y, et al. Prognostic impact of residual lateral lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with advanced low rectal cancer. BJS Open 2019;3:822–9. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 25. Fujita S, Mizusawa J, Kanemitsu Y, Ito M, Kinugasa Y, Komori K, et al. Mesorectal excision with or without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II/III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): a multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial. Ann Surg 2017;266:201–7. ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Tsukamoto S, Fujita S, Ota M, Mizusawa J, Shida D, Kanemitsu Y, et al. Long-term follow-up of the randomized trial of mesorectal excision with or without lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer (JCOG0212). Br J Surg 2020;107:586–94. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 27. Tan JJ, Carten RV, Babiker A, Abulafi M, Lord AC, Brown G. Prognostic importance of MRI-detected extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: a literature review and systematic meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;111:385–94. ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Shihab OC, Taylor F, Bees N, Blake H, Jeyadevan N, Bleehen R, et al. Relevance of magnetic resonance imaging-detected pelvic sidewall lymph node involvement in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2011;98:1798–804. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 29. Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Blomqvist L, Swift IR, et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:34–43. ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B, Stelzner S, West NP, Branagan G, et al. Prospective validation of a low rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging staging system and development of a local recurrence risk stratification model: the MERCURY II study. Ann Surg 2016;263:751–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Chand M, Swift RI, Tekkis PP, Chau I, Brown G. Extramural venous invasion is a potential imaging predictive biomarker of neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2014;110:19–25. ArticlePubMed
  • 32. Fernandez-Martos C, Garcia-Albeniz X, Pericay C, Maurel J, Aparicio J, Montagut C, et al. Chemoradiation, surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy versus induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery: long-term results of the Spanish GCR-3 phase II randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1722–8. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 33. Fernández-Martos C, Pericay C, Aparicio J, Salud A, Safont M, Massuti B, et al. Phase II, randomized study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) compared with induction CAPOX followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer: Grupo cancer de recto 3 study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:859–65. ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Koukourakis IM, Kouloulias V, Tiniakos D, Georgakopoulos I, Zygogianni A. Current status of locally advanced rectal cancer therapy and future prospects. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023;186:103992.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Lin W, Li C, Clement EA, Brown CJ, Raval MJ, Karimuddin AA, et al. Surgical outcomes in total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer versus standard long-course chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2024;279:620–30. ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Clinical implications of radiologic criteria and prognostic factors for lateral lymph node metastasis in low rectal cancer
      Gyung Mo Son
      Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(6): 489.     CrossRef

    • Cite this Article
      Cite this Article
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with low rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment
      Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(6):545-553.   Published online December 29, 2025
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00675.0096
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    • 2
    Related articles
    Predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with low rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment
    Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings. (A) Clinical lateral lymph node metastasis positive (arrow). (B) Magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion positive (arrow).
    Fig. 2. Patient inclusion flowchart. TME, total mesorectal excision; LLND, lateral lymph node dissection.
    Fig. 3. Prediction of lateral lymph node metastasis based on lymph node size. cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    Fig. 3.

    Predictors of lateral lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with low rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection without preoperative treatment
    Characteristic Value
    Sex
     Female 45 (27.6)
     Male 118 (72.4)
    Age (yr) 64.8±10.7
    Tumor distance from AV (mm) 47.3±18.2
    Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 15.6±37.3
    Preoperative serum CA19-9 (U/mL) 27.4±82.2
    Clinical T category
     T2 3 (1.8)
     T3 134 (82.2)
     T4 26 (16.0)
    cMLNM
     Negative 79 (48.5)
     Positive 84 (51.5)
    cLLNM
     Negative 130 (79.8)
     Positive 33 (20.2)
    Clinical stage
     II 72 (44.2)
     III 91 (55.8)
    Clinical CRM
     Negative 128 (78.5)
     Positive 35 (21.5)
    Tumor size (mm) 52.8±19.9
    Histological type
     Well/moderately differentiated 154 (94.5)
     Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 9 (5.5)
    mrEMVI
     Negative 115 (70.6)
     Positive 48 (29.4)
    Pathological T category
     T1b, T2 11 (6.7)
     T3 138 (84.7)
     T4 14 (8.6)
    pMLNM
     Negative 80 (49.1)
     Positive 83 (50.9)
    pLLNM
     Negative 136 (83.4)
     Positive 27 (16.6)
    Pathological stage
     II 70 (42.9)
     III 93 (57.1)
    Pathological CRM
     Negative 149 (91.4)
     Positive 14 (8.6)
    Postoperative chemotherapy
     Yes 73 (44.8)
     No 90 (55.2)
    Factor pLLNM Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
    Negative (n=136) Positive (n=27) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
    Sex 0.816
     Female 37 8
     Male 99 19
    Age (yr) 0.531
     <65 60 10
     ≥65 76 17
    Tumor distance from AV (mm) 0.184
     >50 51 6
     ≤50 85 21
    Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 0.294
     <5 67 10
     ≥5 69 17
    Preoperative serum CA19–9 (U/mL) 0.084 0.257
     <37 124 21 1 (Reference)
     ≥37 12 6 2.618 (0.495–13.889)
    Clinical T category 0.294
     T2 2 1
     T3 114 20
     T4 20 6
    cMLNM 0.036 0.643
     Negative 71 8 1 (Reference)
     Positive 65 19 1.371 (0.361–5.208)
    cLLNM <0.001 <0.001
     Negative 125 5 1 (Reference)
     Positive 11 22 53.000 (15.100–185.000)
    Clinical CRM 0.305
     Negative 109 19
     Positive 27 8
    mrEMVI 0.069 0.242
     Negative 100 15 1 (Reference)
     Positive 36 12 2.170 (0.593–7.950)
    Histological type 0.645
     Well/moderately differentiated 129 25
     Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 7 2
    Factor No. of patients RFS (%) P-value LRFS (%) P-value DRFS (%) P-value
    Sex 0.547 0.638 0.640
     Female 45 71.5 91.4 76.5
     Male 118 68.7 88.8 75.9
    Age (yr) 0.107 0.838 0.095
     <65 70 76.4 89.7 82.6
     ≥65 93 63.9 91.8 70.5
    Tumor distance from AV (mm) <0.001 0.149 <0.001
     >50 57 93.2 95.2 93.5
     ≤50 106 57.1 88.4 67.2
    Preoperative serum CEA (ng/mL) 0.024 0.036 0.202
     <5 77 80.6 96.5 81.4
     ≥5 86 60.9 85.8 71.7
    Preoperative serum CA19–9 (U/mL) 0.054 0.424 0.141
     <37 145 71.0 91.1 77.0
     ≥37 18 56.7 86.7 66.6
    Pathological T category 0.038 0.187 0.009
     T1b–3 149 71.6 91.3 78.5
     T4 14 43.1 71.8 43.1
    pMLNM 0.017 0.332 0.004
     Negative 80 79.6 88.4 87.0
     Positive 83 61.2 92.4 61.7
    pLLNM <0.001 0.056 <0.001
     Negative 136 75.8 92.4 81.1
     Positive 27 28.2 80.7 49.0
    Pathological CRM <0.001 0.348 <0.001
     Negative 149 72.5 90.0 79.4
     Positive 14 30.5 100 32.5
    mrEMVI <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     Negative 115 83.0 95.8 85.3
     Positive 48 29.1 75.8 50.8
    Histological type <0.001 0.484 <0.001
     Well/moderately differentiated 154 71.9 91.0 78.8
     Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 9 33.3 80.0 33.3
    Postoperative treatment 0.852 0.973 0.625
     No 90 70.2 91.5 75.2
     Yes 73 69.2 90.1 77.6
    Factor Recurrence-free survival Local recurrence-free survival Distant recurrence-free survival
    HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
    Tumor distance from AV (mm) 0.009 0.037
     >50 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
     ≤50 4.196 (1.437–12.250) 3.172 (1.071–9.395)
    pLLNM 0.047 0.120 0.224
     Negative 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
     Positive 2.086 (1.010–4.308) 2.614 (0.779–8.772) 1.626 (0.743–3.562)
    mrEMVI <0.001 0.007 0.012
     Negative 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
     Positive 3.838 (1.939–7.600) 5.225 (1.561–17.490) 2.601 (1.230–5.502)
    Histological type 0.039
     Well/moderately differentiated 1 (Reference)
     Poorly differentiated, mucinous, signet ring cell 2.604 (1.048–6.494)
    Table 1. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics (n=163)

    Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

    AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; cMLNM, clinical mesorectal lymph node metastasis; cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion; pMLNM, pathological mesorectal lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis.

    Table 2. The association between pLLNM and preoperative clinical factors (n=163)

    pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; cMLNM, clinical mesorectal lymph node metastasis; cLLNM, clinical lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

    Table 3. The correlation between clinicopathological factors and 3-year prognosis (n=163)

    RFS, recurrence-free survival; LRFS, local recurrence-free survival; DRFS, distant recurrence-free survival; AV, anal verge; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; pMLNM, pathological mesorectal lymph node metastasis; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; CRM, circumferential resection margin; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

    Table 4. Multivariate analyses of the predictive factors for 3-year prognosis

    The table includes significant risk factors alone, apart from pLLNM.

    HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; AV, anal verge; pLLNM, pathological lateral lymph node metastasis; mrEMVI, magnetic resonance imaging–detected extramural vascular invasion.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
    © Korean Society of Coloproctology.
    TOP