Effect of extended radical resection for rectal cancer

Table 1 Relationship between lymphatic metastasis and invasive rate

Circumference	n	Lymphatic metastasis (-)	Lymphatic metastasis (+)	Positive rate (%)
1/2	90	66	24	26.7%
1/2	121	56	65	53.7%a

^aP < 0.01, vs≤ 1/2 circumference.

Table 2 Relationship between lymphatic metastasis and invasive depth

Depth	n	Lymphatic metastasis (-)	Lymphatic metastasis (+)	Positive rate (%)
Muscular	96	71	25	26.0%
Serosa	115	42	73	63.5%b

^bP < 0.01, vs. Muscular.

Table 3 Relationship between lymphatic metastasis and macrotype

Macrotype	n	Lymphatic metastasis (-)	Lymphatic metastasis (+)	Positive rate (%)
Local	99	67	32	32.3%c
Invasive	112	46	66	58.9%

^cP < 0.01, vs. invasive type.

Table 4 Relationship between lymphatic metastasis and histological type

Histological type (adenocarcinoma)	n	Lymphatic metastasis (-)	Lymphatic metastasis (+)	Positive rate (%)
Well and moderately differentiated	160	109	51	31.8%
Poorly differentiated and mucinous	51	16	35	68.6%d

^dP < 0.01, vs. well and moderately differentiated type.

Table 5 Relationship between lymphatic metastasis and growth type

Growth type	n	Lymphatic metastasis (-)	Lymphatic metastasis (+)	Positive rate (%)
Expanding	61	47	14	22.9%
Invasive	150	46	105	70.0%e

^eP < 0.01, vs. expanding type.

Table 6 Survival rate of extend radical resection (ERR) and conventional radical resection (CRR)

	n1	5-year-survival rate	n2	10-year-survival rate
Dukes A
CRR	54/103	52.4%	16/55	29.1%
ERR	63/73	86.3%	5/9	55.69%
Dukes B
CRR	32/71	45.1%	12/43	27.9%
ERR	28/47	59.5%	1/3	33.3%
Dukes C
CRR	38/115	33.0%	12/60	20.0%
ERR	52/91	57.1%	2/12	40.0%
Total
CRR	124/289	42.9%	40/158	25.3%
ERR	136/200	68.0%	8/17	47.0%