4.5 Article

Which Is a More Reliable Indicator of Survival After Gastric Cancer Surgery: Postoperative Complication Occurrence or C-Reactive Protein Elevation?

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 8, Pages 894-899

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.24067

Keywords

gastric cancer; gastrectomy; C-reactive protein; postoperative complication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: The impact of postoperative complications on long-term outcome has been reported in several types of malignancies. However, it is unclear why postoperative complications affect long-term outcome. The aim of this study is evaluating whether postoperative complication occurrence or C-reactive protein (CRP) elevation better reflects long-term outcome in gastric cancer patients. Methods: This study included 305 patients who underwent curative surgery for pT2-T4b gastric cancer. Patients were divided into two groups based on the peak CRP value (CRPmax): low (<12 mg/dl) and high CRPmax (>= 12 mg/dl). A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Postoperative complications (>= Grade II) occurred in 86 of 305 patients (28.2%). Although CRP elevation (P = 0.001) and postoperative complication occurrence (P = 0.045) was each significantly associated with RFS in the univariate analysis, multivariate analysis identified CRP elevation (P = 0.017) but not complication occurrence (P = 0.682) as an independent prognostic factor. Among patients without complications, those in the high CRPmax group had significantly worse RFS than those in the low CRPmax group (P = 0.004). Conclusions: CRP elevation is a more reliable indicator of survival after gastric cancer surgery than postoperative complication occurrence. Surgeons should minimize the postoperative inflammatory response to improve prognosis. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available