Cargando…

Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE: The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Jun, Jiang, Yuming, Chen, Xinhua, Chen, Yuehong, Gurung, Jhang Lopsang, Mou, Tingyu, Zhao, Liying, Lyu, Guoqing, Li, Tuanjie, Li, Guoxin, Yu, Jiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32410796
http://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.02.06
_version_ 1783532928580452352
author Luo, Jun
Jiang, Yuming
Chen, Xinhua
Chen, Yuehong
Gurung, Jhang Lopsang
Mou, Tingyu
Zhao, Liying
Lyu, Guoqing
Li, Tuanjie
Li, Guoxin
Yu, Jiang
author_facet Luo, Jun
Jiang, Yuming
Chen, Xinhua
Chen, Yuehong
Gurung, Jhang Lopsang
Mou, Tingyu
Zhao, Liying
Lyu, Guoqing
Li, Tuanjie
Li, Guoxin
Yu, Jiang
author_sort Luo, Jun
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with different PM distance for GC into a prediction nomogram. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical DG from June 2004 to June 2014 at Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University were included. The first endpoints of the prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5 cm increments) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards regression was performed using the training set, and the nomogram was constructed, patients were chronologically assigned to the training set for dates from June 1, 2004 to January 30, 2012 (n=493) and to the validation set from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (n=211). RESULTS: Among 704 patients with pTNM stage I, pTNM stage II, T1−2, T3−4, N0, differentiated type, tumor size ≤5.0 cm, a PM of (2.1−5.0) cmvs. PM≤2.0 cm showed a statistically significant difference in DFS and OS, while a PM>5.0 cm was not associated with any further improvement in DFS and OSvs. a PM of 2.1−5.0 cm. In patients with pTNM stage III, N1, N2−3, undifferentiated type, tumor size >5.0 cm, the PM distance was not significantly correlated with DFS and OS between patients with a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm and a PM≤2 cm, or between patients with a PM >5.0 cm and a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm, so there were no significant differences across the three PM groups. In the training set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.721 and 0.735, respectively, and in the validation set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.752 and 0.751, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to obtain not less than 2.0 cm of PM distance in early-stage disease, while PM distance was not associated with long-term survival in later and more aggressive stages of disease because more advanced GC is a systemic disease. Different types of patients should be considered for removal of an individualized PM distance intra-operatively. We developed a universally applicable prediction model for accurately determining the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS and OS of GC patients according to their preoperative clinicopathologic characteristics and PM distance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7219099
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72190992020-05-14 Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy Luo, Jun Jiang, Yuming Chen, Xinhua Chen, Yuehong Gurung, Jhang Lopsang Mou, Tingyu Zhao, Liying Lyu, Guoqing Li, Tuanjie Li, Guoxin Yu, Jiang Chin J Cancer Res Original Article OBJECTIVE: The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with different PM distance for GC into a prediction nomogram. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical DG from June 2004 to June 2014 at Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University were included. The first endpoints of the prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5 cm increments) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards regression was performed using the training set, and the nomogram was constructed, patients were chronologically assigned to the training set for dates from June 1, 2004 to January 30, 2012 (n=493) and to the validation set from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (n=211). RESULTS: Among 704 patients with pTNM stage I, pTNM stage II, T1−2, T3−4, N0, differentiated type, tumor size ≤5.0 cm, a PM of (2.1−5.0) cmvs. PM≤2.0 cm showed a statistically significant difference in DFS and OS, while a PM>5.0 cm was not associated with any further improvement in DFS and OSvs. a PM of 2.1−5.0 cm. In patients with pTNM stage III, N1, N2−3, undifferentiated type, tumor size >5.0 cm, the PM distance was not significantly correlated with DFS and OS between patients with a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm and a PM≤2 cm, or between patients with a PM >5.0 cm and a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm, so there were no significant differences across the three PM groups. In the training set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.721 and 0.735, respectively, and in the validation set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.752 and 0.751, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to obtain not less than 2.0 cm of PM distance in early-stage disease, while PM distance was not associated with long-term survival in later and more aggressive stages of disease because more advanced GC is a systemic disease. Different types of patients should be considered for removal of an individualized PM distance intra-operatively. We developed a universally applicable prediction model for accurately determining the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS and OS of GC patients according to their preoperative clinicopathologic characteristics and PM distance. AME Publishing Company 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7219099/ /pubmed/32410796 http://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.02.06 Text en Copyright © 2020 Chinese Journal of Cancer Research. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
Luo, Jun
Jiang, Yuming
Chen, Xinhua
Chen, Yuehong
Gurung, Jhang Lopsang
Mou, Tingyu
Zhao, Liying
Lyu, Guoqing
Li, Tuanjie
Li, Guoxin
Yu, Jiang
Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title_full Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title_fullStr Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title_short Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
title_sort prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32410796
http://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.02.06
work_keys_str_mv AT luojun prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT jiangyuming prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT chenxinhua prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT chenyuehong prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT gurungjhanglopsang prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT moutingyu prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT zhaoliying prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT lyuguoqing prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT lituanjie prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT liguoxin prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy
AT yujiang prognosticvalueandnomogramsofproximalmargindistanceingastriccancerwithradicaldistalgastrectomy