4.6 Article

Prognostic value of metastatic lymph node ratio as an additional tool to the TNM stage system in gastric cancer

Journal

EJSO
Volume 41, Issue 7, Pages 927-933

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.03.225

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Lymph node ratio; Prognosis; TNM stage

Funding

  1. Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis, Ministry of Education [1122-02-1402]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Gastric cancer is one of most common malignancies in the world. Currently the prognostic prediction is entirely based on the TNM staging system. In this study, we evaluated whether metastatic lymph node ratio (rN) at the time of surgery would improve the prognostic prediction in conjunction with the TNM staging system. Methods: This retrospective study includes 745 patients, who had been referred for surgery due to gastric cancer between 1995 and 2007 and had at least 15 lymph nodes examined at the time of surgery without preoperative treatment. Clinicopathologic features and overall survival were analyzed using univariate and multivariate modes to identify the risk factors for overall survival. Results: Median overall survival of all patients analyzed is 57.8 months and 5-year overall survival is 49.5%. Tumor site, macroscopic type, pTNM stage, and rN stage are identified as independent prognostic factors. Increased positive lymph node ratio correlates with shorter survival in all patients and in each T and N stage. In stage III gastric cancer patients, rN stage shows additional prognostic value on overall survival (p<0.001). Conclusions: rN stage is a simple and promising prognostic factor of gastric cancer after surgery in addition to the TNM stage system especially in stage III patients. But the independent prognostic value of rN stage in stage I, 11 and IV gastric cancer is yet to be determined. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available