BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to clarify whether TNM-EC or TNM-GC is better for classifying patients with AEG types II/III. METHODS: The patients who had AEG types II/III and received D1 or more radical lymphadenectomy were selected. The patients were staged both by seventh edition of TNM-EC and TNM-GC. The distribution of the patients, the hazard ratio (HR) of each stage, and the separation of the survival were compared. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were enrolled in this study. TNM-EC and TNM-GC classified 25 (20 and 5) and 32 (20 and 12) patients to stage I (IA and IB), 15 (4 and 11), and 33 (11 and 22) to stage II (IIA and IIB), 88 (24, 3, and 61) and 63 (14, 26, and 23) to stage III (IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC), and 35 and 35 to stage IV, respectively. The distribution of the patients was substantially deviated to stage IIIC in TNM-EC but was almost even in TNM-GC. A stepwise increase of HR was observed in TNM-GC, but not in TNM-EC. The survival curves between stages II and III were significantly separated in TNM-GC (P = 0.019), but not in TNM-EC (P = 0.204). The 5-year survival rates of stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC were 69.0, 100, and 38.9% in TNM-EC and were 52.0, 43.4, and 33.9% in TNM-GC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TNM-GC is better for classifying patients with AEG types II/III than TNM-EC is. These results could impact the next TNM revision for AEG.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to clarify whether TNM-EC or TNM-GC is better for classifying patients with AEG types II/III. METHODS: The patients who had AEG types II/III and received D1 or more radical lymphadenectomy were selected. The patients were staged both by seventh edition of TNM-EC and TNM-GC. The distribution of the patients, the hazard ratio (HR) of each stage, and the separation of the survival were compared. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were enrolled in this study. TNM-EC and TNM-GC classified 25 (20 and 5) and 32 (20 and 12) patients to stage I (IA and IB), 15 (4 and 11), and 33 (11 and 22) to stage II (IIA and IIB), 88 (24, 3, and 61) and 63 (14, 26, and 23) to stage III (IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC), and 35 and 35 to stage IV, respectively. The distribution of the patients was substantially deviated to stage IIIC in TNM-EC but was almost even in TNM-GC. A stepwise increase of HR was observed in TNM-GC, but not in TNM-EC. The survival curves between stages II and III were significantly separated in TNM-GC (P = 0.019), but not in TNM-EC (P = 0.204). The 5-year survival rates of stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC were 69.0, 100, and 38.9% in TNM-EC and were 52.0, 43.4, and 33.9% in TNM-GC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:TNM-GC is better for classifying patients with AEG types II/III than TNM-EC is. These results could impact the next TNM revision for AEG.
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Alessandro Ambrosi; Annalaura Salerno; Antonio Esposito; Maria Chiara Petrone; Damiano Chiari; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Maria C Petrone; Carla Canevari; Damiano Chiari; Annalaura Salerno; Paolo G Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Francesca Gallivanone; Luigi Gianolli; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Annalaura Salerno; Alessandro Ambrosi; Damiano Chiari; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Laurence Moureau-Zabotto; Eric Teissier; Didier Cowen; David Azria; Steve Ellis; Michel Resbeut Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 2.260