Y Wang1, J Zhang1, S Guo1, Z Dong1, X Meng1, G Zheng1, D Yang1, Z Zheng1, Y Zhao2. 1. Department of Gastric Cancer, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute (Cancer Hospital of China Medical University), No. 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang City, 110042, Liaoning Province, China. 2. Department of Gastric Cancer, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute (Cancer Hospital of China Medical University), No. 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang City, 110042, Liaoning Province, China. dr.zhaoyan@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between stage T2N0M0 and stage T1N1M0 gastric cancer (GC) and to identify the necessity of adjuvant treatment (AT) for these stages. METHODS: Between years 2004 and 2015, 1971 stage IB GC patients who underwent radical surgery were recruited using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. We conducted univariate/multivariate analyses, the propensity score matching and evaluated gastric cancer-specific survival (GCSS) and overall survival (OS) with the log-rank test. RESULTS: T1N1M0 had a significantly worse survival than T2N0M0 in both GCSS and OS before and after the propensity score matching. Examined lymph nodes (ELN) ≤ 15 and T1N1M0 were independent risk factors for worse GCSS and OS in stage IB GC. The absence of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) was an independent risk factor for worse GCSS and OS in T1N1M0 but not in T2N0M0. AT demonstrated similar GCSS and OS with surgery alone (SA) for T2N0M0 but better survival for T1N1M0. Compared to CT and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) group, SA demonstrated significantly worse GCSS and OS for T1N1M0. There was no significant difference between CT and CRT in both T2N0M0 and T1N1M0 stages. T2N0M0 had a better survival than T1N1M0 in ELN ≤ 15 subgroup. However, similar survival was demonstrated in ELN > 15 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: T2N0M0 GC has a better survival rate than T1N1M0 GC when ELN are ≤ 15. Moreover, T2N0M0 GC may not benefit from AT. T1N1M0 GC requires CT but not adjuvant radiotherapy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between stage T2N0M0 and stage T1N1M0 gastric cancer (GC) and to identify the necessity of adjuvant treatment (AT) for these stages. METHODS: Between years 2004 and 2015, 1971 stage IB GC patients who underwent radical surgery were recruited using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. We conducted univariate/multivariate analyses, the propensity score matching and evaluated gastric cancer-specific survival (GCSS) and overall survival (OS) with the log-rank test. RESULTS: T1N1M0 had a significantly worse survival than T2N0M0 in both GCSS and OS before and after the propensity score matching. Examined lymph nodes (ELN) ≤ 15 and T1N1M0 were independent risk factors for worse GCSS and OS in stage IB GC. The absence of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) was an independent risk factor for worse GCSS and OS in T1N1M0 but not in T2N0M0. AT demonstrated similar GCSS and OS with surgery alone (SA) for T2N0M0 but better survival for T1N1M0. Compared to CT and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) group, SA demonstrated significantly worse GCSS and OS for T1N1M0. There was no significant difference between CT and CRT in both T2N0M0 and T1N1M0 stages. T2N0M0 had a better survival than T1N1M0 in ELN ≤ 15 subgroup. However, similar survival was demonstrated in ELN > 15 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: T2N0M0 GC has a better survival rate than T1N1M0 GC when ELN are ≤ 15. Moreover, T2N0M0 GC may not benefit from AT. T1N1M0 GC requires CT but not adjuvant radiotherapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjuvant treatment; Examined lymph nodes; Gastric cancer; Surveillance, epidemiology and end results; T1N1M0; T2N0M0
Authors: J J Bonenkamp; I Songun; J Hermans; M Sasako; K Welvaart; J T Plukker; P van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; C W Taat Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Takeshi Sano; Daniel G Coit; Hyung Ho Kim; Franco Roviello; Paulo Kassab; Christian Wittekind; Yuko Yamamoto; Yasuo Ohashi Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Jaffer A Ajani; Thomas A D'Amico; Khaldoun Almhanna; David J Bentrem; Joseph Chao; Prajnan Das; Crystal S Denlinger; Paul Fanta; Farhood Farjah; Charles S Fuchs; Hans Gerdes; Michael Gibson; Robert E Glasgow; James A Hayman; Steven Hochwald; Wayne L Hofstetter; David H Ilson; Dawn Jaroszewski; Kimberly L Johung; Rajesh N Keswani; Lawrence R Kleinberg; W Michael Korn; Stephen Leong; Catherine Linn; A Craig Lockhart; Quan P Ly; Mary F Mulcahy; Mark B Orringer; Kyle A Perry; George A Poultsides; Walter J Scott; Vivian E Strong; Mary Kay Washington; Benny Weksler; Christopher G Willett; Cameron D Wright; Debra Zelman; Nicole McMillian; Hema Sundar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jason S Gold; Riad H Al Natour; Mandeep S Saund; Charles Yoon; Ashish M Sharma; Qin Huang; Valia A Boosalis; Edward E Whang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Brice Jabo; Matthew J Selleck; John W Morgan; Sharon S Lum; Khaled A Bahjri; Mayada Aljehani; Carlos A Garberoglio; Mark E Reeves; Jukes P Namm; Naveenraj L Solomon; Fabrizio Luca; Crickett Dyke; Maheswari Senthil Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2018-02
Authors: Yuan Zeng; Nicholas Mayne; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Jun Liu; Fei Cui; Jingpei Li; Wenhua Liang; Jianxing He Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-04