Literature DB >> 28228146

Body mass index (BMI) may be a prognostic factor for gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination.

Shi Chen1, Run-Cong Nie2, Li-Ying OuYang3, Yuan-Fang Li2, Jun Xiang1, Zhi-Wei Zhou2, YingBo Chen4, JunSheng Peng5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate whether body mass index (BMI) is a prognostic factor in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study consisting of 518 patients with a histological diagnosis of gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination seen at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University and Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between January 2010 and April 2014. Patients were followed until December 2015. Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to compare the clinicopathological variables and prognosis.
RESULTS: Univariate analyses showed that significant prognostic factors included palliative gastrectomy (p < 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.001), tumor location (p = 0.011), peritoneal seeding grade (p < 0.001), ascites (p = 0.001), serum CEA level (p = 0.002), serum CA19-9 level (p = 0.033), palliative chemotherapy (p < 0.001), and BMI group (p < 0.001). For patients with palliative chemotherapy, univariate analysis revealed that palliative gastrectomy (p < 0.001), tumor size (p = 0.002), tumor location (p = 0.024), peritoneal seeding grade (p = 0.008), serum CEA level (p = 0.041), and BMI group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that BMI was an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, especially in patients who received palliative chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: BMI is a prognostic factor for patients who have gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination, especially in those who received palliative chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI; Gastric cancer; Palliative chemotherapy; Peritoneal dissemination; Prognosis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28228146      PMCID: PMC5322670          DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-1076-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1477-7819            Impact factor:   2.754


Background

In China, gastric cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death [1]. And most patients with gastric cancer are diagnosed with an advanced stage of the disease in China, some even with metastatic disease [2, 3]. Peritoneal dissemination is the most common manifestation for late-stage gastric cancer [4]. The prognosis of patients who have gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination is very poor, even with the development of targeted therapy and chemotherapy [5, 6]. Palliative gastrectomy is still controversial for this group of patients. In clinic, we believed that the nutritional status is an important factor that impacts the treatment and prognosis of patients who have gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination. Body mass index (BMI) is commonly used to assess nutritional status [7]. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines, BMI is divided into three groups with 18.5 and 25 as the cutoff values for a normal BMI level. However, in Asia, a BMI range of 18.5 to 23 is always used to classify people into the underweight group, normal range group, and overweight group [8]. BMI has always been used as an indicator of the status of patients. It had been reported that the BMI would infect the surgical outcomes in colorectal cancer, pancrea cancer, liver cancer, and so on. [9-13]. However, the controversy of the BMI on perioperative morbidity still remained [14-17]. In a report by Pawlik et al. about the BMI and gastric cancer, the overall survival of patients with underweight patients with a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 after gastrectomy for cancer was worse than those with BMI higher than 18.5 [18]. Hu et al. reported that a low BMI was associated with more severe postoperative complications and a poor prognosis, compared to patients with a normal BMI [19]. However, there are no reports in the current literature that have examined the relationship between BMI and the prognosis of patients who have gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between BMI and the prognosis of gastric cancer patients who have peritoneal dissemination.

Methods

Ethics approval and consent

All patients provided written informed consent for their information to be stored in a hospital database. A separate consent was obtained for the use of this information for research purposes. Study approval was obtained from independent ethics committees at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University. This study was undertaken in accordance with the ethical standards of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Patients

Between January 2000 and April 2014, a total of 518 patients were histologically proven and diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis in surgery in The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. Patients were divided into three groups based on their BMI using 18.5 and 23 as the cutoff values. The clinicopathologic characteristics and clinical outcomes of all 518 patients were reviewed.

Patient inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) WHO performance status of 0 to 1; (2) the patient underwent surgery and had histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma of the stomach with peritoneal dissemination; (3) no synchronous or metachronous cancers; (4) no history of previous radiotherapy or other treatments, including immunotherapy or traditional Chinese medicine; and (5) no prior gastric surgery.

Classification of peritoneal seeding

According to the first English edition of the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma, the degree of peritoneal metastasis was classified as follows: P0, no peritoneal dissemination or seeding; P1, disseminating metastasis to the region directly adjacent to the peritoneum of the stomach (above the transverse colon including the greater omentum); P2, several scattered metastases to the distant peritoneum and ovarian metastasis alone; and P3, numerous metastases to the distant peritoneum [20].

Follow-up

Following treatment, patients were monitored every month for the first year, every 3 months for the second year, and every 6 months thereafter. Telephone calls and letters were used to follow-up patients who were unable to attend regular follow-up assessments. Complete data were collected for all 523 patients through December 2015.

Statistical methods

A chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables between the palliative operative group and the other groups. Student’s t test was used to compare continuous variables. Univariate survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. Analyses were performed using SPSS software v.20.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) for Windows. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

Patient demographics

Among the 518 patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal dissemination, 330 underwent non-curative gastrectomy, while 188 patients did not. Their median age was 59 years (range, 18–83). Of these patients, 289 were male and 229 were female. The 1-year overall survival of the entire cohort was 26.0%, with a median survival of 13.2 months. Patients were separated into three groups based on their BMI with the cutoff values of 18.5 and 23. There were 167 patients with a BMI <18.5, 232 with a BMI 18.5–23, and 119 patients with a BMI >23. The patient clinicopathological characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Clinical pathological data for gastric cancer patients with different BMI groups

Clinical pathological dataFewer than 18.5 (n = 167 cases)Between 18.5–23(n = 232 cases)Greater than 23 (n = 119 cases) p value
Cases%Cases%Cases%
Age (years)Mean52.652.953.3
Range20–8519–8529–84
SexMale9556.912252.67260.5
Female7243.111047.44739.50.347
Tumor locationGastric cardia4024.04720.33126.1
Middle2615.64720.33226.9
Antrum6337.79239.73630.3
Total stomach3822.84619.82016.80.181
SurgeryGastrectomy9053.916571.17563.0
No gastrectomy7746.16728.94437.00.002
Tumor size<5 cm5029.99139.24739.5
≥5 and <10 cm8349.710444.85647.1
≥10 cm3420.43715.91613.40.249
Serum CEA level<5 ng/ml10467.516573.78070.8
≥5 ng/ml5032.55926.33329.20.433
CA19-9 level<35 U/ml9159.915169.37263.7
≥35U/ml6140.16730.74136.30.166
Seeding gradea P12816.86628.44235.3
P24426.37231.03327.7
P39556.99440.54437.00.001
Multi-site metastasisWithout9758.118178.08168.1
With7041.95122.03831.9< 0.001
ChemotherapyWithout7746.16829.33630.3
With9053.916470.78369.70.001

aPeritoneal dissemination grade was divided into P1, P2, and P3 groups under the standard of first English version of Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma

Clinical pathological data for gastric cancer patients with different BMI groups aPeritoneal dissemination grade was divided into P1, P2, and P3 groups under the standard of first English version of Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma

Univariate analyses of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination

Based on Kaplan-Meier analysis, palliative gastrectomy (p < 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.001), tumor location (p = 0.011), peritoneal seeding grade (p < 0.001), ascites (p = 0.001), serum CEA level (p = 0.002), serum CA19-9 level (p = 0.033), palliative chemotherapy (p < 0.001), and BMI group (p < 0.001) were significant prognostic factors in this cohort, and the results were shown in Fig. 1. As shown in Table 2, the median survival of patients based on BMI were 8.17 months in patients with a BMI less than 18.5, 18.67 months for those with a BMI between 18.5 and 23, and 11.87 months in patients with a BMI greater than 23.
Fig. 1

The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), ascites (e), serum CEA level (f), serum CA19-9 level (g), palliative chemotherapy (h), and BMI group (i) were significant prognostic factors in this cohort

Table 2

Univariate analysis of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination

Variables n 1-year survival rate (%)Median survival (months) p value
All 518 gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination
 Palliative gastrectomy<0.001
  With330197.33
  Without1883116.13
 Tumor size<0.001
  <5 cm1883117.30
  5 and <10 cm2432611.00
  >10 cm87189.30
 Tumor location0.011
  Upper1182312.00
  Middle1053015.60
  Lower1913913.33
  Total104208.97
 Peritoneal seeding grade<0.001
  P11363418.67
  P21493115.48
  P3233198.97
 Ascite0.001
  With207209.87
  Without3113114.27
 Serum CEA level (ng/ml)0.002
  Normal3492914.03
  Elevated142209.33
 Serum CA19-9 level (U/ml)0.033
  Normal3142913.53
  Elevated1692211.27
 Palliative chemotherapy<0.001
  Yes3373517.40
  No18196.90
 BMI group (kg/m2)<0.001
  <18.5167158.17
  18.5–232323518.67
  >231192511.87
The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), ascites (e), serum CEA level (f), serum CA19-9 level (g), palliative chemotherapy (h), and BMI group (i) were significant prognostic factors in this cohort Univariate analysis of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination

BMI value was an independent prognostic factor of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination by multivariate analyses

Cox regression model was used to identify the independent prognostic risk factors in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal seeding. The results revealed that palliative gastrectomy, peritoneal seeding grade, serum CEA level, palliative chemotherapy, and BMI value were independent prognostic risk factors. All of these results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in gastric cancer patients (Cox regression model)

VariableHR95% CI p value
OS in gastric cancer patients
 Palliative gastrectomy (Gastrectomy vs. without gastrectomy)a 0.6890.540–0.8790.003
 Tumor size (<5, ≥5, and <10 vs. ≥10 cm)1.1760.999–1.3830.051
 Tumor location (Upper, middle, and lower vs. total)1.0800.962–1.2130.192
 Ascite (With vs. without)1.0260.817–1.2880.827
 Peritoneal seeding grade (P1 and P2 vs. P3)1.2981.124–1.500< 0.001
 Serum CEA Level (Normal vs. elevated)1.4241.120–1.8100.004
 Serum CA19-9 Level (Normal vs. elevated)1.1330.900–1.4240.287
 Palliative chemotherapy (With vs. without)0.3990.314–0.506< 0.001
 BMI group (<18.5 and 18.5–23 vs. >23)0.8120.686–0.9620.016

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in gastric cancer patients (Cox regression model) Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Univariate analyses and multivariate analysis of the prognosis of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination without palliative chemotherapy

Patients were stratified based on having received palliative chemotherapy or not. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that palliative gastrectomy (p < 0.001), tumor size (p = 0.049), tumor location (p = 0.002), peritoneal seeding grade (p < 0.001), ascites (p = 0.017), serum CEA level (p = 0.024), serum CA19-9 level (p = 0.014), and BMI group (p = 0.008) were prognostic risk factors. All of these results are presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination without palliative chemotherapy. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), ascites (e), serum CEA level (f), serum CA19-9 level (g), and BMI group (h) were prognostic risk factors

The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination without palliative chemotherapy. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), ascites (e), serum CEA level (f), serum CA19-9 level (g), and BMI group (h) were prognostic risk factors Only the tumor location and the peritoneal seeding grade remained independent prognostic factors upon Cox regression analysis, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination without palliative chemotherapy (Cox regression model)

VariableHR95% CI p value
OS in gastric cancer patients
 Palliative gastrectomy (Gastrectomy vs. without gastrectomy)a 0.7720.516–1.1540.207
 Tumor size (<5, ≥5, and <10 vs. ≥10 cm)1.0160.771–1.3390.910
 Tumor location (Upper, middle, and lower vs. total)1.3141.070–1.6140.009
 Ascite (With vs. without)0.9690.653–1.4380.877
 Peritoneal seeding grade (P1 and P2 vs. P3)1.5071.178–1.9280.001
 Serum CEA Level (Normal vs. elevated)1.3560.915–2.0110.129
 Serum CA19-9 Level (Normal vs. elevated)1.3840.943–2.0310.097
 BMI group (<18.5 and 18.5–23 vs. >23)0.8710.654–1.1610.346

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination without palliative chemotherapy (Cox regression model) Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Univariate analyses and multivariate analysis of the prognoses of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination with palliative chemotherapy

As shown in Fig. 3, 337 patients received palliative chemotherapy in this cohort. Results from Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the palliative gastrectomy (p < 0.001), tumor size (p = 0.002), tumor location (p = 0.024), peritoneal seeding grade (p = 0.008), serum CEA level (p = 0.041), and BMI group (p < 0.001) were risk factors.
Fig. 3

The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination underwent palliative chemotherapy. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), serum CEA level (e), and BMI group (f) were risk factors

The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the prognosis of this group of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination underwent palliative chemotherapy. Palliative gastrectomy (a), tumor size (b), tumor location (c), peritoneal seeding grade (d), serum CEA level (e), and BMI group (f) were risk factors Multivariate analysis showed that palliative gastrectomy, serum CEA level, and BMI group were independent prognostic factors, as showed in Table 5.
Table 5

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination with palliative chemotherapy (Cox regression model)

VariableHR95% CI p value
OS in gastric cancer patients
 Palliative gastrectomy (Gastrectomy vs. without gastrectomy)a 0.6520.477–0.8930.008
 Tumor size (<5, ≥5, and <10 vs. ≥10 cm)1.2651.027–1.5590.027
 Tumor location (Upper, middle, and lower vs. total)0.9720.844–1.1180.689
 Peritoneal seeding grade (P1 and P2 vs. P3)1.1720.982–1.3980.079
 Serum CEA level (Normal vs. elevated)1.4131.045–1.9120.025
 BMI group (<18.5 and 18.5–23 vs. >23)0.7830.636–0.9640.021

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Multivariate analyses of the overall survival in these group gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination with palliative chemotherapy (Cox regression model) Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval aThe factor listed at the last was used as the control level in this Cox regression model

Discussion

With the increasing prevalence of obesity that occurred in China and worldwide [21], few recent reports have concluded that some classes of obesity can be considered “healthy.” Findings from our study show that BMI value was an independent prognostic factor for patients who have gastric carcinoma with peritoneal seeding. Patients with low BMI as well as a high BMI had a worse survival rate compared with patients who had a BMI within normal range. Previous studies have reported that patients with higher BMI would be at higher risk for perioperative morbidity after major abdominal cancer surgery [16, 22]. In the study from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the results showed that higher BMI of the patients (higher than 25) would bring longer operative time, fewer lymph nodes, and higher complications [15]. In our study, a higher ratio of the patients with a normal BMI underwent palliative gastrectomy, which is an important independent prognostic factor, in addition to palliative chemotherapy. However, the function of palliative gastrectomy remains controversial, especially for the patients with peritoneal dissemination. Some studies have suggested that palliative gastrectomy may improve survival without increasing morbidity and mortality [23, 24], while other reports have contradicted this suggestion [2, 25]. Selection of patients for palliative gastrectomy remains controversial for both surgeons and oncologists. In our studies, we stratified the 518 patients based on receipt of palliative chemotherapy to eliminate the influences of the palliative chemotherapy. Among the patients who did not receive palliative chemotherapy, neither palliative gastrectomy nor BMI was independent prognostic factors. Conversely, among patients who received palliative chemotherapy, both palliative gastrectomy and BMI were independent prognostic factors. This finding implies that patients with a normal BMI who receive palliative chemotherapy may benefit from gastrectomy. As a retrospective study, there were confounding factors that may have influenced the statistical analyses and conclusions. BMI is an important factor that reflects the nutritional status and is correlated with postoperative complications and long-term survival of gastric cancer. Findings from this study suggest that gastric cancer patients with a normal BMI may benefit from palliative gastrectomy combined with chemotherapy. Additional experiments and clinical trials are needed to validate the important value of BMI on the prognosis of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination.

Conclusions

BMI is a prognostic factor for patients who have gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination, especially in those who received palliative chemotherapy. BMI can be used to predict the effect of palliative chemotherapy on these patients.
  24 in total

1.  Implications of overweight in gastric cancer: A multicenter study in a Western patient population.

Authors:  J Kulig; M Sierzega; P Kolodziejczyk; J Dadan; M Drews; M Fraczek; A Jeziorski; M Krawczyk; T Starzynska; G Wallner
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 4.424

2.  Impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes and survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a large single-institution study.

Authors:  Susan Tsai; Michael A Choti; Lia Assumpcao; John L Cameron; Ana L Gleisner; Joseph M Herman; Frederic Eckhauser; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Christopher L Wolfgang; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Body mass index and waist circumference independently contribute to the prediction of nonabdominal, abdominal subcutaneous, and visceral fat.

Authors:  Ian Janssen; Steven B Heymsfield; David B Allison; Donald P Kotler; Robert Ross
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.045

4.  Effect of metabolic syndrome on perioperative outcomes after liver surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis.

Authors:  Neil H Bhayani; Omar Hyder; Wayne Frederick; Richard D Schulick; Christopher L Wolgang; Kenzo Hirose; Barish Edil; Joseph M Herman; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.982

5.  Impact of obesity on perioperative complications and long-term survival of patients with gastric cancer.

Authors:  Kai A Bickenbach; Brian Denton; Mithat Gonen; Murray F Brennan; Daniel G Coit; Vivian E Strong
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Obesity prevalence in the United States--up, down, or sideways?

Authors:  Susan Z Yanovski; Jack A Yanovski
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Scaling of human body mass with height: the body mass index revisited.

Authors:  N J MacKay
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Predictive factors improving survival after gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Authors:  Masayoshi Hioki; Naoto Gotohda; Masaru Konishi; Toshio Nakagohri; Shinichiro Takahashi; Taira Kinoshita
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 alone for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SPIRITS trial): a phase III trial.

Authors:  Wasaburo Koizumi; Hiroyuki Narahara; Takuo Hara; Akinori Takagane; Toshikazu Akiya; Masakazu Takagi; Kosei Miyashita; Takashi Nishizaki; Osamu Kobayashi; Wataru Takiyama; Yasushi Toh; Takashi Nagaie; Seiichi Takagi; Yoshitaka Yamamura; Kimihiko Yanaoka; Hiroyuki Orita; Masahiro Takeuchi
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Obesity, outcomes and quality of care: body mass index increases the risk of wound-related complications in colon cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ramzi Amri; Liliana G Bordeianou; Patricia Sylla; David L Berger
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  10 in total

1.  Body mass index and mortality in patients with gastric cancer: a large cohort study.

Authors:  Jung Hwan Lee; Boram Park; Jungnam Joo; Myeong-Cherl Kook; Young-Il Kim; Jong Yeul Lee; Chan Gyoo Kim; Il Ju Choi; Bang Wool Eom; Hong Man Yoon; Keun Won Ryu; Young-Woo Kim; Soo-Jeong Cho
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 7.370

2.  The Impact of Preoperative Low Body Mass Index on Postoperative Complications and Long-term Survival Outcomes in Gastric Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Chang Hyun Kim; Seung-Man Park; Jin-Jo Kim
Journal:  J Gastric Cancer       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.720

3.  Prognostic significance of malignant ascites in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ling-Nan Zheng; Feng Wen; Ping Xu; Shuang Zhang
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 1.337

4.  Lifestyle factors and long-term survival of gastric cancer patients: A large bidirectional cohort study from China.

Authors:  Lu-Lu Zhao; Huang Huang; Yang Wang; Tong-Bo Wang; Hong Zhou; Fu-Hai Ma; Hu Ren; Peng-Hui Niu; Dong-Bing Zhao; Ying-Tai Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Geriatric nutritional risk index predicts cancer prognosis in patients with local advanced rectal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy followed by curative surgery.

Authors:  Shozo Ide; Yoshinaga Okugawa; Yusuke Omura; Akira Yamamoto; Takashi Ichikawa; Takahito Kitajima; Tadanobu Shimura; Hiroki Imaoka; Hiroyuki Fujikawa; Hiromi Yasuda; Takeshi Yokoe; Yoshiki Okita; Masaki Ohi; Yuji Toiyama
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  An ascites grading system for predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer with peritoneum dissemination.

Authors:  Michitaka Honda; Hidetaka Kawamura; Hiroshi Kobayashi; Koichi Takiguchi; Atsushi Muto; Shigeru Yamazaki; Yasushi Teranishi; Satoru Shiraso; Koji Kono; Soshi Hori; Takahiro Kamiga; Toshiyasu Iwao; Naoyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2020-08-16

7.  Detection of sarcopenic obesity and prediction of long-term survival in patients with gastric cancer using preoperative computed tomography and machine learning.

Authors:  Jaehyuk Kim; Seung Hee Han; Hyoung-Il Kim
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 2.885

8.  An elevated preoperative serum calcium level is a significant predictor for positive peritoneal cytology in endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Xingchen Li; Yuan Cheng; Yangyang Dong; Boqiang Shen; Xiao Yang; Jiaqi Wang; Jingyi Zhou; Jianliu Wang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.087

9.  Impact of intramuscular adipose tissue content on short- and long-term outcomes of hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Nobutoshi Horii; Yu Sawda; Takafumi Kumamoto; Nobuhiro Tsuchiya; Takashi Murakami; Yasuhiro Yabushita; Yuki Honma; Ryusei Matsuyama; Daisuke Morioka; Hirotoshi Akiyama; Itaru Endo
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Predicting Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer Patients Based on Machine Learning.

Authors:  Chengmao Zhou; Ying Wang; Mu-Huo Ji; Jianhua Tong; Jian-Jun Yang; Hongping Xia
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.302

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.