ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Pathology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1611170
This article is part of the Research TopicEvaluating surgical techniques and perioperative strategies in colorectal cancer treatmentView all 4 articles
A Prospective Analysis of Lymph Node Retrieval in Colorectal Cancer: Discrepancies, Neoadjuvant Impact, and Practical Implications
Provisionally accepted- 1Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University, London, Canada
- 2Tenomix Inc., London, Canada
- 3Advanced Diagnostics Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
- 4Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
- 5Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Advanced Diagnostics Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Accurate lymph node (LN) retrieval is vital for colorectal cancer (CRC) staging and determining adjuvant therapy. In this prospective study of 122 CRC specimens, we evaluated LN retrieval times, discrepancies between gross and microscopic LN counts, and the impact of neoadjuvant therapy. On average, dissecting each specimen took 50 minutes (range 15–295 minutes), with rectal and descending/sigmoid colon specimens often requiring multiple passes. Macroscopic dissection yielded an average of 45.1 LNs per specimen, whereas microscopic examination confirmed only 35.7 LNs on average. Neoadjuvant therapy did not alter macroscopic yields (p = 0.105), yet significantly reduced microscopic LN counts (p = 2.676 × 10⁻⁵). T-stage correlated with total microscopic LN counts (p = 0.018) but not the number of cancer-positive nodes (p = 0.140). Rectal specimens showed the largest discrepancy between macroscopic and microscopic LN counts; in contrast, 8 specimens had higher microscopic than macroscopic counts, suggesting that some LNs were missed during manual palpation but detected microscopically in the extra submitted sections of mesenteric tissue. Overall, the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 50.18%, rising to 97.87% for neoadjuvant-treated cases. The average pathology report turnaround time (TAT) was 3.3 business days, meeting the recommended four-day threshold, with no significant delay due to cancer location or additional LN searches. A preliminary cost analysis indicates that missed or misidentified LNs can increase histology processing and pathologist review expenses, emphasizing the need for more efficient LN search protocols. Taken together, these findings emphasize the multifactorial nature of LN retrieval challenges, particularly in neoadjuvant-treated and anatomically complex cases. Refining dissection protocols, leveraging new technologies, and allocating adequate resources may help reduce retrieval errors, potentially improving staging accuracy and clinical decision-making.
Keywords: Lymph Nodes, manual dissection, colorectal cancer, Grossing, Pathologists' Assistant, Economics
Received: 13 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Biswas, Walsh, Haq, Marilley, Pasman, Kendall, Cecchini, Lebbin and Wilson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Darren Wilson, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Advanced Diagnostics Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55902, Minnesota, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.