Lymph node ratio-based the ypTNrM staging system for gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a large population-based study

Surgery Today ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia-Xian Chen ◽  
Jian-Wei Sun ◽  
Yi Wang ◽  
Tao Pan ◽  
Lv-Ping Zhuang ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Honghu Wang ◽  
Hao Qi ◽  
Xiaofang Liu ◽  
Ziming Gao ◽  
Iko Hidasa ◽  
...  

AbstractThe staging system of remnant gastric cancer (RGC) has not yet been established, with the current staging being based on the guidelines for primary gastric cancer. Often, surgeries for RGC fail to achieve the > 15 lymph nodes needed for TNM staging. Compared with the pN staging system, lymph node ratio (NR) may be more accurate for RGC staging and prognosis prediction. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 208 patients who underwent R0 gastrectomy with curative intent and who have ≤ 15 retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs) for RGC between 2000 and 2014. The patients were divided into four groups on the basis of the NR cutoffs: rN0: 0; rN1: > 0 and ≤ 1/6; rN2: > 1/6 and ≤ 1/2; and rN3: > 1/2. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for rN0, rN1, rN2, and rN3 were 84.3%, 64.7%, 31.5%, and 12.7%, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed that tumor size (p = 0.005), lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.023), and NR (p < 0.001), but not pN stage (p = 0.682), were independent factors for OS. When the RLN count is ≤ 15, the NR is superior to pN as an important and independent prognostic index of RGC, thus predicting the prognosis of RGC patients more accurately.


2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 2106-2111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Persiani ◽  
Stefano Rausei ◽  
Vincenzo Antonacci ◽  
Alberto Biondi ◽  
Francesco Casella ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 24-24
Author(s):  
Sarah B. Fisher ◽  
Malcolm Hart Squires ◽  
Sameer H. Patel ◽  
David A. Kooby ◽  
Kenneth Cardona ◽  
...  

24 Background: Previous investigators have reported on the value of lymph node ratio (LNR, defined as the number of positive nodes divided by the total number of nodes assessed) in gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) staging. Given the complexity of previously proposed staging systems, it has not gained widespread acceptance. The aim of our study was to offer a novel simplified approach to incorporating LNR into gastric cancer staging. Methods: 131 patients who underwent curative intent resection with lymphadenectomy for GAC between 1/00-6/11 were identified. Clinicopathologic factors were assessed. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: Median age was 64 yrs, 51% were male. Median tumor size was 3.5 cm, 67% were poorly differentiated, 20% had perineural invasion, 31% had lymphovascular invasion, and 6% had a positive margin. Locoregional nodal metastases were present in 59% (n=77, N0: 41%, N1: 18%, N2: 22%, N3a: 14%, N3b: 5%). Median number of lymph nodes (LN) assessed was 15.5. Mean FU was 27.3 mos, median OS was 29.3 mos. Median LNR was 0.4 (.04-1). Patients with LNR ≥0.4 had decreased OS as compared to patients with LNR <0.4 (15.1 vs 41.5 mos, p<0.0001); the survival of patients with LNR <0.4 was similar to that of node negative pts (48 mos, p=0.882). On Cox regression analysis, LNR ≥0.4 was more strongly associated with decreased OS (HR 3.09, 95%CI: 1.81-5.26; p<0.0001) compared to the AJCC 7th edition N stage (HR 1.36, 95%CI: 1.11-1.68; p=0.004). In the subset of patients who were inadequately staged and had <16 nodes examined, a LNR ≥0.4 was associated with reduced survival compared to a LNR <0.4 (17.3 vs 41.5 mos, p=.04). Conclusions: Compared to the current lymph node staging system, a lymph node ratio using 0.4 as the cutoff may more accurately predict survival outcomes. It seems to be particularly useful in patients who have inadequate nodal assessment. This simplified approach to lymph node ratio may be a more valuable staging tool than the current AJCC nodal staging system for gastric cancer and needs to be validated.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueh-Chang Lee ◽  
Po-Jen Yang ◽  
Yuxin Zhong ◽  
Thomas E. Clancy ◽  
Ming-Tsan Lin ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 255 (3) ◽  
pp. 478-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiping Wang ◽  
Ping Dang ◽  
Chandrajit P. Raut ◽  
Prakash K. Pandalai ◽  
Ugwuji N. Maduekwe ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document