Does high body mass index negatively affect the surgical outcome and long-term survival of gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bochao Zhao ◽  
Jingting Zhang ◽  
Di Mei ◽  
Rui Luo ◽  
Huiwen Lu ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 955-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Do Joong Park ◽  
Yoontaek Lee ◽  
Ki Bum Park ◽  
Sa-Hong Min ◽  
...  


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo Marte ◽  
Andrea Tufo ◽  
Francesca Steccanella ◽  
Ester Marra ◽  
Piera Federico ◽  
...  

Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.



2016 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 2379-2385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiangling Wang ◽  
Wenjing Guo ◽  
Qicheng Wu ◽  
Runze Zhang ◽  
Jun Fang


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Costantino Voglino ◽  
Giulio Di Mare ◽  
Francesco Ferrara ◽  
Lorenzo De Franco ◽  
Franco Roviello ◽  
...  

Introduction. The impact of preoperative BMI on surgical outcomes and long-term survival of gastric cancer patients was investigated in various reports with contrasting results.Materials & Methods. A total of 378 patients who underwent a surgical resection for primary gastric cancer between 1994 and 2011 were retrospectively studied. Patients were stratified according to BMI into a normal group (<25, group A), an overweight group (25–30, group B), and an obesity group (≥30, group C). These 3 groups were compared according to clinical-pathological characteristics, surgical treatment, and long-term survival.Results. No significant correlations between BMI and TNM (2010), UICC stage (2010), Lauren’s histological type, surgical results, lymph node dissection, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were observed. Factors related to higher BMI were male genderP<0.05, diabetesP<0.001, and serum blood proteinsP<0.01. A trend to fewer lymph nodes retrieved during gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy in overweight patients (B and C groups) was observed, although not statistically significant. There was no difference in overall survival or disease-specific survival between the three groups.Conclusion. According to our data, BMI should not be considered a significant predictor of postoperative complications or long-term result in gastric cancer patients.



2019 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunhe Gao ◽  
Hongqing Xi ◽  
Bo Wei ◽  
Jianxin Cui ◽  
Kecheng Zhang ◽  
...  


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guang-Chuan Mu ◽  
Yuan Huang ◽  
Zhi-Ming Liu ◽  
Xiang-Hua Wu ◽  
Xin-Gan Qin ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic factors and establish a nomogram to predict the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients. Methods The clinicopathological data of 421 gastric cancer patients, who were treated with radical D2 lymphadenectomy by the same surgical team between January 2009 and March 2017, were collected. The analysis of long-term survival was performed using Cox regression analysis. Based on the multivariate analysis results, a prognostic nomogram was formulated to predict the 5-year survival rate probability. Results In the present study, the total overall 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 58.7 and 45.8%, respectively. The results of the univariate Cox regression analysis revealed that tumor staging, tumor location, Borrmann type, the number of lymph nodes dissected, the number of lymph node metastases, positive lymph nodes ratio, lymphocyte count, serum albumin, CEA, CA153, CA199, BMI, tumor size, nerve invasion, and vascular invasion were prognostic factors for gastric cancer (all, P < 0.05). However, merely tumor staging, tumor location, positive lymph node ratio, CA199, BMI, tumor size, nerve invasion, and vascular invasion were independent risk factors, based on the results of the multivariate Cox regression analysis (all, P < 0.05). The nomogram based on eight independent prognostic factors revealed a well-degree of differentiation with a concordance index of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.79, P < 0.001), which was better than the AJCC-7 staging system (concordance index = 0.68). Conclusion The present study established a nomogram based on eight independent prognostic factors to predict long-term survival in gastric cancer patients. The nomogram would be beneficial for more accurately predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer, and provide important basis for making individualized treatment plans following surgery.



2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Sun ◽  
Bochao Zhao ◽  
Youyi Huang ◽  
Huiwen Lu ◽  
Rui Luo ◽  
...  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document