Clinical and pathological study of borrmann 4 type gastric cancer and multivariate analysis of its prognostic factors.

Background. The prognostic relevance of gastric tumor location has been reported and debated. Our study was conducted to examine the differences in clinicopathological features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) between patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) and distal gastric cancer (DGC). Patients and Methods. Patients with PGC or DGC were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) during 1997–2017. Survival analysis was performed via Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Results. We reviewed 16,119 cases of gastric cancer patients, including 6,479 of PGC and 9,640 of DGC. PGC patients presented as older patients (61.5 versus 56.4 years, P<0.001) and more males (82.9% versus 68.2%, P<0.001). Compared with DGC, PGC was more likely to be in later pT stage (pT3 and pT4, 65.0% versus 52.8%, P<0.001) and lymph node metastasis (54.8% versus 50.9%, P<0.001). In univariate analysis, PGC patients had a worse survival outcome in stage I (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.42-2.94) but a better prognosis in stage IV (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) when compared to DGC patients. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that PGC was not an independent predictor for poor survival (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.14). Results from multivariate analysis also revealed that pT4, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, no gastrectomy, and Borrmann IV were independent predictors associated with poor survival for both PGC and DGC patients. Additional prognostic factors for PGC patients included underweight (BMI < 18.5) (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.58), linitis plastica (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25-3.65), and overweight (23 ≤ BMI <27.5) (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.90). During the 20-year study period, the 5-year OS increased significantly for both PGC and DGC, with the increase rate of 91.7% and 67.7%, respectively. Conclusion. In China, PGC significantly differed from DGC in clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors. However, there was no significant relationship between survival outcome and gastric tumor location.

Download Full-text

Survival analysis of treatment with S-1, alone or in combination with CDDP (SP), in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer: A 10-year retrospective cohort study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e15170 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e15170-e15170

Author(s):

Akitaka Makiyama ◽

Tatsuhiro Kajitani ◽

Hisanobu Oda ◽

Chinatsu Fujimoto ◽

Taito Esaki

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

The Elderly ◽

Metastatic Site ◽

Gastric Cancer Patients

e15170 Background: In Japan, the elderly population is increasing, and steadily increase the number of deaths in the elderly gastric cancer patients. However, the standard treatment of elderly gastric cancer has not been established, either treatment of S-1 or SP is carried out in the clinical practice, while SP is considered as standard therapy in the young people. Now, we investigated the impact of S-1 and SP on survival time in clinical practice. Methods: Between 2003 and 2012, advanced gastric cancer patients over 70 years of age received S-1 or SP as first line therapy were retrospectively reviewed to investigate clinical outcomes. Patient characteristics analyzed included age, gender, performance status (PS), tumor histology, renal function and metastatic site. In addition, we have analyzed prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Results: Among 93 patients (pts), 67 pts (72%) received S-1 and 26 pts (28%) received SP. Patient characteristics between the two groups showed no significant differences in gender, histology, metastatic site, or creatinine clearance level, but did show an imbalance in PS (tended with better at SP group) and age (tended with younger at SP group), significantly. Even though the background factors were favorable results in SP group, there were no significant differences in median progression-free survival (median 139 vs. 102 days; p = 0.96) and overall survival (median 330 vs. 263 days; p = 0.55) between S-1 and SP group, respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia (10 vs. 27%, p < 0.05) , fatigue (3 vs. 15%, p < 0.05) and Grade 1-2 creatinine increased (9 vs. 31%, p < 0.01) were more frequent in the SP group than in the S-1 group, respectively. According to the multivariate analysis, exposure to CDDP was not independently associated with a better prognosis. Conclusions: Despite the obvious limitations of this analysis, there does not appear to be a benefit for the addition of CDDP in the elderly gastric cancer patients due to the increase of toxicity. A randomized controlled trial in this age group is warranted. We will also report the results of clinically meaningful prognostic factors associated with the primary treatment at annual meeting.

Download Full-text

The prognostic factors and the cause of death in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.215 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 215-215

Author(s):

Sang Woo Lee ◽

In Keun Choi ◽

Chang Min Lee ◽

Seung Young Kim ◽

Jong Jin Hyun ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Bone Metastasis ◽

Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽

Causes Of Death ◽

Palliative Surgery ◽

Peritoneal Seeding ◽

Recurrent Gastric Cancer

215 Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate significant prognostic factor and compare the cause of death in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 170 patients who had been diagnosed as advanced or recurrent gastric cancer between January 2006 and September 2013. The patients were divided into two groups. One group (advanced gastric cancer: AC) included 104 patients had undergone chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer, and the other group (recurrent gastric cancer: RC) 66 for recurrence after surgical treatment. The causes of death and overall survival were compared between two groups, and the significant prognostic factors were investigated by multivariate analysis. Also, subgroup analysis was performed for 18 patients with gastrectomy for curative intent, and they were proved to have unresectable gastric cancer after surgery (non-palliative surgery for advanced gastric cancer: NS). Results: In the comparison for the causes of death, two groups showed no statistical difference, but AC group had more tendency to die because of bleeding ( p = 0.054) and infection ( p = 0.075). Overall survival of AC group did not differ from that of RC ( p = 0.901). In multivariate analysis, bone metastasis ( p = 0.013, HR = 1.923), peritoneal seeding ( p = 0.001, HR = 2.182) and the frequency of chemotherapy ( p < 0.001, HR = 0.887) were significantly associated with the overall survival. In a subgroup analysis, the overall survival of NS was significantly higher than AC ( p = 0.032). Conclusions: In the patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer, AC might have more possibility to die because of bleeding and infection than RC. Additionally, the prognosis of patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer was affected by the presence of bone metastasis, peritoneal seeding and frequency of chemotherapy. Non-palliative surgery for gastric cancer might show the better prognosis than AC in the specific conditions.

Download Full-text

Prognostic factors for PFS in patients with advanced gastric cancer: Using the data from JCOG9912 study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.180 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 180-180

Author(s):

Daisuke Takahari ◽

Narikazu Boku ◽

Junki Mizusawa ◽

Kenichi Nakamura ◽

Yasuhide Yamada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽

Prognostic Index ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Cox Proportional Hazard ◽

Metastatic Sites

180 Background: In advanced gastric cancer (AGC), there are many reports about prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and we have proposed a prognostic index using four prognostic factors (PS, number of metastatic sites, prior gastrectomy and ALP; Oncologist 2014) based on a phase III trial JCOG 9912 for the first-line treatment (Lancet Oncol. 2009). However, there is no report about prognostic factors for progression free survival (PFS). In this ancillary study, we explored whether prognostic factors are similar or not between OS and PFS. Methods: The subjects of this study were selected from the JCOG9912 which intended to confirm the superiority of irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) and the non-inferiority of S-1 to5-FU for patients with AGC. Of all enrolled patients in JCOG9912, those who had target lesions and whose complete data were available were analyzed with multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model. Results: 492 out of the 703 pts of JCOG9912 were analyzed, who received either 5-FU (n=163), IP (n=164) or S-1(n=165). The median PFS was 3.7 months for all the subjects, and 2.2 months for 5-FU, 4.9 months for IP and 3.8 months for S-1. Multivariate analysis in all 492 analyzed patients demonstrated seven independent prognostic factors for PFS (Table). Prognostic factors in each treatment were; sex (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.11-2.49), PS (1.51, 1.04-2.18), Ca (0.39, 0.17-0.86), GPT (2.46, 1.30-4.66) and LDH (1.67, 1.16-2.48) in 5-FU, sex (1.77, 1.10-2.86) in IP, and Na (2.00, 1.01-3.99) and creatinine clearance (0.37, 0.15-0.93) in S-1. Conclusions: There were no common prognostic factors among the three treatment regimens. Prognostic factors for PFS may be different by treatment regimen, although further investigations with larger sample size are needed. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Significant prognostic factors by multivariate analysis of 3926 gastric cancer patients

World Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1007/bf00299091 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 18 (6) ◽

pp. 872-877 ◽

Cited By ~ 55

Author(s):

Jin-Pok Kim ◽

Young-Woo Kim ◽

Han-Kwang Yang ◽

Dong-Young Noh

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Gastric Cancer Patients

Download Full-text

Clinical significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in advanced gastric cancer after radical resection

10.21203/rs.3.rs-21459/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lihu Gu ◽

Bangsheng Chen ◽

Dingcheng Zheng ◽

Jiahang Mo ◽

Lingling Yuan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽

Peripheral Blood ◽

Inflammatory Markers ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

Glasgow Prognostic Score ◽

Inflammation Markers ◽

Optimal Cutoff

Abstract Background and objective: The prognostic significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in patients with gastric cancer (GC) has not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between systemic inflammatory markers and GC prognosis.Methods: A prospective observational cohort study involving 598 patients was conducted to analyze the prognosis of GC based on systemic inflammatory markers. The following peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers were evaluated: the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), C-reactive protein/albumin (CRP/Alb) ratio, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), and prognostic index (PI). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the Youden index were used to determine the optimal cutoff values. Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was conducted accordingly.Results: The optimal cutoff values of the PNI, fibrinogen, NLR, PLR, SII, and CRP/Alb were 49.5, 397ng/dl, 2.5, 154, 556, and 0.05, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age, PLR, TNM stage, and chemotherapy were the independent prognostic factors for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the long-term prognosis of patients with PLR ≥154, but chemotherapy had no significant effect on the survival of patients with PLR <154.Conclusions: Our findings show that higher PLR (≥154) is an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in GC patients. Besides, PLR can predict adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil combination) response in patients with GC after surgery.

Download Full-text

Clinical significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in advanced gastric cancer after radical resection

10.21203/rs.3.rs-40554/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lihu Gu ◽

Mian Wang ◽

Xuena Cui ◽

Jiahang Mo ◽

Lingling Yuan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽

Peripheral Blood ◽

Inflammatory Markers ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

Glasgow Prognostic Score ◽

Inflammation Markers ◽

Optimal Cutoff

Abstract Background: The prognostic significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in patients with gastric cancer (GC) has not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between systemic inflammatory markers and GC prognosis.Methods: A prospective observational cohort study involving 598 patients was conducted to analyze the prognosis of GC based on systemic inflammatory markers. The following peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers were evaluated: the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), C-reactive protein/albumin (CRP/Alb) ratio, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), and prognostic index (PI). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the Youden index were used to determine the optimal cutoff values. Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was conducted accordingly.Results: The optimal cutoff values of the PNI, fibrinogen, NLR, PLR, SII, and CRP/Alb were 49.5, 397ng/dl, 2.5, 154, 556, and 0.05, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age, PLR, TNM stage, and chemotherapy were the independent prognostic factors for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the long-term prognosis of patients with PLR ≥154, but chemotherapy had no significant effect on the survival of patients with PLR <154.Conclusions: Our findings show that higher PLR (≥154) is an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in GC patients. Besides, PLR can predict adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil combination) response in patients with GC after surgery.

Download Full-text

The impact of the preoperative waiting period on the survival in patients with clinical stage II / III gastric cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.4_suppl.27 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽

pp. 27-27

Author(s):

Furukawa Kenichiro ◽

Rie Makuuchi ◽

Keiichi Fujiya ◽

Noriyuki Nishiwaki ◽

Hayato Omori ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Clinical Stage ◽

Lymph Node Status ◽

Multiple Cancer ◽

Waiting Period ◽

Japanese Classification ◽

The Impact

27 Background: Although prolonged preoperative waiting period (PWP) for gastric cancer (GC) may influence the prognosis, the relationship between PWP and survival outcome has not been elucidated. The aim of this study is to identify the impact of PWP on survival in patients with clinical stage (cStage) II / III GC. Methods: A total of 483 patients who underwent surgery for cStage II / III GC according to Japanese classification of GC, 14th edition, between January 2002 and December 2012 were included. The patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or who had multiple cancer, special histological types of tumor, or urgent symptoms were excluded. We defined PWP as the period from the date of endoscopy for initial diagnose to that of surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to PWP; short waiting period group (SWPG, PWP ≤ 60 days, n = 357) and long waiting period group (LWPG, PWP > 60 days, n = 126). Survival outcomes were compared between the groups and multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS) was conducted to identify independent prognostic factors. Results: The median PWP was 49 (21-323) days. In LWPG, patients were significantly older (P = 0.001) and had more comorbidities (P = 0.042) than those in SWPG. Preoperative lymph node status was significantly lower in LWPG (P = 0.031), although there were no differences in tumor depth and cStage between the groups. There was no difference in OS between the groups (5-year OS, SWPG: 61.0%, LWPG: 63.2%, P = 0.612). Multivariate analysis for OS identified age, BMI, histological type, and cStage as independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: Preoperative waiting period appears to have no influence on survival in patients with cStage II / III GC.

Download Full-text

Prognostic Factors for Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients who Underwent Gastrectomy

10.21203/rs.3.rs-676689/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Shunji Endo ◽

Tomoki Yamatsuji ◽

Yoshinori Fujiwara ◽

Masaharu Higashida ◽

Hisako Kubota ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Performance Status ◽

Postoperative Mortality ◽

Prognostic Nutritional Index ◽

Pathological Stage ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Operative Severity Score

Abstract Background: Patients with gastric cancer are aging in Japan. It is not clear which patients and which surgical procedures have survival benefits after gastrectomy. A multivariate analysis was performed.Methods: The medical records of 166 patients aged ≥80 years who underwent gastrectomy without macroscopic residual tumors were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazard models were performed to detect prognostic factors for overall survival.Results: In univariate analyses, age (≥90 vs. ≥80, <85), performance status (3 vs. 0), the physiological score of the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) (≥40 vs. ≥20, ≤29), Onodera’s prognostic nutritional index (<40 vs. ≥45), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) (3, 4 vs. 1, 2), surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. open), extent of gastrectomy (total, proximal vs. distal), extent of lymphadenectomy (D1 vs. ≥D2), pathological stage (II-IV vs. I), and residual tumor (R1 vs. R0) were significantly correlated with worse overall survival. Multivariate analysis revealed that ASA-PS [3, 4 vs. 1, 2, hazard ratio (HR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-4.24], extent of gastrectomy (total vs distal, HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.10-4.31), (proximal vs. distal, HR 4.05, 95% CI 1.45-11.3), extent of lymphadenectomy (D0 vs. ≥D2, HR 12.4, 95% CI 1.58-97.7) and pathological stage were independent risk factors for mortality.Conclusions: ASA-PS was a useful predictor for postoperative mortality. Gastrectomy including cardia and excessive limitation of lymphadenectomy are best avoided.

Download Full-text

Clinical significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in advanced gastric cancer after radical resection

10.21203/rs.3.rs-40554/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lihu Gu ◽

Mian Wang ◽

Xuena Cui ◽

Jiahang Mo ◽

Lingling Yuan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽

Peripheral Blood ◽

Inflammatory Markers ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

Glasgow Prognostic Score ◽

Inflammation Markers ◽

Optimal Cutoff

Abstract Background: The prognostic significance of peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers in patients with gastric cancer (GC) has not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between systemic inflammatory markers and GC prognosis.Methods: A prospective observational cohort study involving 598 patients was conducted to analyze the prognosis of GC based on systemic inflammatory markers. The following peripheral blood-derived inflammation markers were evaluated: the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), C-reactive protein/albumin (CRP/Alb) ratio, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), and prognostic index (PI). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the Youden index were used to determine the optimal cutoff values. Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was conducted accordingly.Results: The optimal cutoff values of the PNI, fibrinogen, NLR, PLR, SII, and CRP/Alb were 49.5, 397ng/dl, 2.5, 154, 556, and 0.05, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age, PLR, TNM stage, and chemotherapy were the independent prognostic factors for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the long-term prognosis of patients with PLR ≥154, but chemotherapy had no significant effect on the survival of patients with PLR <154.Conclusions: Our findings show that higher PLR (≥154) is an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in GC patients. Besides, PLR can predict adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil combination) response in patients with GC after surgery.

Download Full-text