Prognostic significance of the metastatic lymph node ratio compared to the TNM classification in stage III gastric cancer.


Journal

Nigerian journal of clinical practice
ISSN: 1119-3077
Titre abrégé: Niger J Clin Pract
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101150032

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Historique:
entrez: 16 11 2021
pubmed: 17 11 2021
medline: 18 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We aimed to evaluate a comparative analysis of the prognostic value of the metastatic lymph node ratio (LNR) and pN (TNM) in stage III gastric cancer. A total of 159 stage III gastric cancer patients with curative gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Cutoff values for LNR were designated according to 25%, 50% and 75% percentiles, 0.07, 0.20 and 0.44 respectively. The LNR was divided into four groups as 0 > LNR1 ≤ 0.07; 0.07 > LNR2 ≤0.20; 0.20 > LNR3 ≤0.44; 0.44 > LNR4 ≤1. The mean age of the patients was 61.1 ± 11.3 years. Male predominance was apparent (73.6%). The 1-year overall survival and recurrence rates were 73.6% and 33.6%, respectively. The univariate cox regression analysis demonstrated age and LNR were the main variables that affected overall survival (OS) (p < 0.05). Harvested lymph nodes less than 16 did not affect OS (p = 0.255). The results of the multivariate cox regression analysis revealed that only LNR was an independent prognostic factor (P < 0.001), while pN was not (p > 0.05). Similar results, as with overall survival, could not be revealed clearly for disease free survival (DFS). LNR was an independent significant prognostic factor and superior to pN staging in predicting OS but not for DFS in stage III gastric cancer patients. The high LNR levels in our research were found to be associated with poor survival rates. The percentile system we used to determine cutoff values may be considered as a reliable method. Similarly, LNR also provides a reliable prognostic parameter in future staging systems to help guide treatment algorithm plans.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
We aimed to evaluate a comparative analysis of the prognostic value of the metastatic lymph node ratio (LNR) and pN (TNM) in stage III gastric cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS METHODS
A total of 159 stage III gastric cancer patients with curative gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Cutoff values for LNR were designated according to 25%, 50% and 75% percentiles, 0.07, 0.20 and 0.44 respectively. The LNR was divided into four groups as 0 > LNR1 ≤ 0.07; 0.07 > LNR2 ≤0.20; 0.20 > LNR3 ≤0.44; 0.44 > LNR4 ≤1.
RESULTS RESULTS
The mean age of the patients was 61.1 ± 11.3 years. Male predominance was apparent (73.6%). The 1-year overall survival and recurrence rates were 73.6% and 33.6%, respectively. The univariate cox regression analysis demonstrated age and LNR were the main variables that affected overall survival (OS) (p < 0.05). Harvested lymph nodes less than 16 did not affect OS (p = 0.255). The results of the multivariate cox regression analysis revealed that only LNR was an independent prognostic factor (P < 0.001), while pN was not (p > 0.05). Similar results, as with overall survival, could not be revealed clearly for disease free survival (DFS).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
LNR was an independent significant prognostic factor and superior to pN staging in predicting OS but not for DFS in stage III gastric cancer patients. The high LNR levels in our research were found to be associated with poor survival rates. The percentile system we used to determine cutoff values may be considered as a reliable method. Similarly, LNR also provides a reliable prognostic parameter in future staging systems to help guide treatment algorithm plans.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34782497
pii: NigerJClinPract_2021_24_11_1602_330459
doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_345_20
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1602-1608

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None

Auteurs

S Gulmez (S)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

A S Senger (AS)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

O Uzun (O)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

S Omeroglu (S)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

C Ofluoglu (C)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Z O Sert (ZO)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

A Oz (A)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

E Polat (E)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

M Duman (M)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH