| Literature DB >> 31737101 |
Wenjie Zhang1,2,3, Guangyan Zhangyuan1,3, Jincheng Wang1,2,3, Kangpeng Jin1, Yang Liu1,2, Fei Wang1,2, Weiwei Yu1,2, Haitian Zhang1,2, Guoqiang Li1, Decai Yu1, Huihui Chen1, Qingxiang Xu1,2, Beicheng Sun1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: The retrieved lymph node (LN) count has been confirmed as a prognostic indicator in various cancers. However, the correlation between LN counts and patient prognosis in gastric cancer with node-positive is not fully studied.Entities:
Keywords: gastric cancer; lymph nodes; nomograms
Year: 2019 PMID: 31737101 PMCID: PMC6843880 DOI: 10.7150/jca.30979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Demographic and tumor characteristics of patients with node positive gastric cancer
| Subgroup | P value | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Patients | N1 | N2 | N3a | N3b | |||||||
| n=8475 | n=2738 | n=2493 | n=2252 | n=992 | |||||||
| Characteristic | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
| 0.016 | |||||||||||
| male | 5404 | 63.8 | 1775 | 64.8 | 1613 | 64.7 | 1426 | 63.3 | 590 | 59.5 | |
| female | 3071 | 36.2 | 963 | 35.2 | 880 | 35.3 | 826 | 36.7 | 402 | 40.5 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| <60 | 2924 | 34.5 | 846 | 30.9 | 843 | 33.8 | 876 | 38.9 | 359 | 36.2 | |
| ≥60 | 5551 | 65.5 | 1892 | 69.1 | 1650 | 66.2 | 1376 | 61.1 | 633 | 63.8 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| White | 5629 | 66.4 | 1856 | 67.8 | 1681 | 67.4 | 1453 | 64.5 | 639 | 64.4 | |
| African American | 1170 | 13.8 | 381 | 13.9 | 364 | 14.6 | 301 | 13.4 | 124 | 12.5 | |
| Others | 1676 | 19.8 | 501 | 18.3 | 448 | 18.0 | 498 | 22.1 | 229 | 23.1 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| Cardia, NOS | 2198 | 15.9 | 864 | 31.6 | 711 | 28.5 | 474 | 21.0 | 149 | 15.0 | |
| Fundus of stomach | 255 | 3.0 | 76 | 2.8 | 92 | 3.7 | 56 | 2.5 | 31 | 3.1 | |
| Body of stomach | 661 | 8.0 | 202 | 7.4 | 185 | 7.4 | 180 | 8.0 | 94 | 9.5 | |
| Gastric antrum | 2118 | 25.0 | 652 | 23.8 | 631 | 25.3 | 596 | 26.5 | 239 | 24.1 | |
| Pylorus | 403 | 4.8 | 130 | 4.7 | 129 | 5.2 | 117 | 5.2 | 27 | 2.7 | |
| Lesser curvature of stomach NOS | 952 | 11.2 | 295 | 10.8 | 248 | 9.9 | 286 | 12.7 | 123 | 12.4 | |
| Greater curvature of stomach NOS | 402 | 4.7 | 128 | 4.7 | 108 | 4.3 | 111 | 4.9 | 55 | 5.5 | |
| Overlapping lesion of stomach | 756 | 8.9 | 174 | 6.4 | 182 | 7.3 | 245 | 10.9 | 155 | 15.6 | |
| Stomach, NOS | 730 | 8.6 | 217 | 7.9 | 207 | 8.3 | 187 | 8.3 | 119 | 12.0 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| High/ Moderate | 1985 | 23.4 | 853 | 31.2 | 611 | 24.5 | 404 | 17.9 | 117 | 11.8 | |
| Poor/ Anaplastic | 6171 | 72.8 | 1731 | 63.2 | 1813 | 72.7 | 1782 | 79.1 | 845 | 85.2 | |
| Unknown | 319 | 3.8 | 154 | 5.6 | 69 | 2.8 | 66 | 2.9 | 30 | 3.0 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 5962 | 70.3 | 2110 | 77.1 | 1825 | 73.2 | 1474 | 65.5 | 553 | 55.7 | |
| Mucinous /Signet ring cell | 2513 | 29.7 | 628 | 22.9 | 668 | 26.8 | 778 | 34.5 | 439 | 44.3 | |
| <0.001 | |||||||||||
| T1 | 581 | 6.9 | 373 | 13.6 | 159 | 6.4 | 41 | 1.8 | 8 | 0.8 | |
| T2 | 786 | 9.3 | 412 | 15.0 | 227 | 9.1 | 122 | 5.4 | 25 | 2.5 | |
| T3 | 3596 | 42.4 | 1090 | 39.8 | 1169 | 46.9 | 1007 | 44.7 | 330 | 33.3 | |
| T4 | 3460 | 40.8 | 820 | 29.9 | 934 | 37.5 | 1078 | 47.9 | 628 | 63.3 | |
| Tx | 52 | 0.6 | 43 | 1.6 | 4 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1 | |
| 17.89(9-23) | 13.18(5-18) | 15.91(8-20) | 19.67(13-24) | 31.87(22-38) | <0.001 | ||||||
| No. of positive LNs | 7.19(2-10) | 1.40(1-2) | 4.26(3-5) | 10.14(8-12) | 23.80(18-27) | <0.001 | |||||
Figure 1X-tile analysis of survival data from the SEER registry. X-tile analysis was done on patient data from the SEER registry, equally divided into training and validation sets. The optimal cut-point highlighted by the black circle in the left panels (A) is shown on a histogram of the entire cohort (middle panels) (B), and a Kaplan-Meier plot (right panels) (C). P values were determined by using the cut-point defined in the training set and applying it to the validation set. Figure 1 shows the optimal cutoff point for the lymph node positive patients (number 6 and 14, χ2=154.244, P < 0.001).
Univariate analysis for the influence of different cutoffs on GCSS in gastric cancer.
| Cutoff | No. | 5-year GCCS | Log-rank χ2 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <2 | 268 | 10.2% | 125.990 | <0.001 |
| ≥2 | 8207 | 30.3% | ||
| <3 | 413 | 13.3% | 114.568 | <0.001 |
| ≥3 | 8062 | 30.5% | ||
| <4 | 591 | 15.2% | 130.281 | <0.001 |
| ≥4 | 7884 | 30.7% | ||
| <5 | 787 | 18.7% | 99.070 | <0.001 |
| ≥5 | 7688 | 30.8% | ||
| <6 | 998 | 18.2% | 132.053 | <0.001 |
| ≥6 | 7477 | 31.2% | ||
| <7 | 1252 | 20.3% | 118.442 | <0.001 |
| ≥7 | 7223 | 31.3% | ||
| <8 | 1544 | 21.7% | 114.520 | <0.001 |
| ≥8 | 6931 | 31.4% | ||
| <9 | 1808 | 22.1% | 121.692 | <0.001 |
| ≥9 | 6667 | 31.7% | ||
| <10 | 2165 | 23.0% | 117.830 | <0.001 |
| ≥10 | 6310 | 31.9% | ||
| <11 | 2521 | 24.7% | 83.525 | <0.001 |
| ≥11 | 5954 | 31.7% | ||
| <12 | 2883 | 24.8% | 88.381 | <0.001 |
| ≥12 | 5592 | 32.2% | ||
| <13 | 3234 | 25.6% | 77.568 | <0.001 |
| ≥13 | 5241 | 32.2% | ||
| <14 | 3587 | 25.8% | 77.682 | <0.001 |
| ≥14 | 4888 | 32.5% | ||
| <15 | 3882 | 26.2% | 70.925 | <0.001 |
| ≥15 | 4593 | 32.6% | ||
| <16 | 4239 | 26.6% | 60.232 | <0.001 |
| ≥16 | 4236 | 32.7% | ||
| <17 | 4557 | 26.9% | 53.464 | <0.001 |
| ≥17 | 3918 | 32.9% | ||
| <18 | 4873 | 26.8% | 59.287 | <0.001 |
| ≥18 | 3602 | 33.5% | ||
| <19 | 5178 | 27.7% | 42.607 | <0.001 |
| ≥19 | 3297 | 32.8% | ||
| <20 | 5431 | 28.0% | 38.271 | <0.001 |
| ≥20 | 3044 | 32.7% |
Univariate and multivariate survival analyses for evaluating the influence of the number of retrieved LNs influencing GCSS in node positive gastric cancer patients.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | 5-year GCCS | Log rank χ2 test | P | HR(95%CI) | P |
| Sex | 3.059 | 0.08 | |||
| Male | 30.4% | ||||
| Female | 28.5% | ||||
| Age | 23.923 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| <60 | 32.0% | Reference | |||
| ≥60 | 28.4% | 1.295(1.221-1.373) | |||
| Race | 51.463 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| White | 27.6% | Reference | |||
| African American | 28.2% | 1.042(0.960-1.131) | |||
| Others | 37.5% | 0.809(0.751-0.871) | |||
| 72.114 | <0.001 | 0.0251 | |||
| Cardia, NOS | 26.1% | Reference | |||
| Fundus of stomach | 31.4% | 0.827(0.700-0.978) | |||
| Body of stomach | 30.5% | 0.769(0.687-0.861) | |||
| Gastric antrum | 32.6% | 0.778(0.718-0.842) | |||
| Pylorus | 29.7% | 0.857(0.748-0.982) | |||
| Lesser curvature of stomach NOS | 37.1% | 0.693(0.625-0.768) | |||
| Greater curvature of stomach NOS | 31.2% | 0.812(0.707-0.931) | |||
| Overlapping lesion of stomach | 23.3% | 0.860(0.774-0.955) | |||
| Stomach, NOS | 26.6% | 0.891(0.801-0.992) | |||
| 98.930 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| High/ Moderate | 37.9% | Reference | |||
| Poor/ Anaplastic | 27.4% | 1.156(1.077-1.241) | |||
| Unknown | 21.7% | 1.186(1.021-1.377) | |||
| Histotype | 45.168 | <0.001 | 0.060 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 32.1% | Reference | |||
| Mucinous/signet ring cell | 24.0% | 1.061(0.998-1.129) | |||
| pT Stage | 731.610 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| T1 | 60.2% | Reference | |||
| T2 | 51.1% | 1.156(0.969-1.380) | |||
| T3 | 31.7% | 1.835(1.584-2.126) | |||
| T4 | 17.9% | 2.604(2.246-3.019) | |||
| Tx | 4.2% | 4.453(3.216-6.164) | |||
| pN Stage | 620.680 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| N1 | 42.9% | Reference | |||
| N2 | 32.2% | 1.371(1.270-1.480) | |||
| N3a | 19.7% | 2.186(2.010-2.378) | |||
| N3b | 9.2% | 3.524(3.169-2.919) | |||
| No. of LNs | 135.822 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| ≤6 | 20.3% | Reference | |||
| 7-14 | 29.0% | 0.586(0.536-0.640) | |||
| ≥15 | 32.6% | 0.390(0.356-0.427) | |||
NI: not included in the multivariate survival analysis.
P values were adjusted for age, race, location, pathological grading, histotype stage, tumor stage and No. of LNs as covariates.
Figure 3The calibration plots for predicting CSS and OS of gastric cancer patients. Nomograms can be interpreted by summing up the points assigned to each variable, which is indicated at the top of scale. The total points can be converted to predicted 3-year and 5-year probability of survival for a patient in the lowest scale (A, B). The Harrell's c-indexes for CSS and OS prediction were 0.663 (95% CI: 0.655-0.671) and 0.654 (95% CI: 0.646-0.662) (P< 0.001), respectively. Calibration curves for 5-year CSS (C) and 5-year OS (D) using nomograms with clinicopathological characteristics and LN counts are shown. The x-axis is nomogram-predicted probability of survival and y-axis is actual survival. The reference line is 45°and indicates perfect calibration.
Univariate and multivariate survival analyses evaluating the number of retrieved LNs influencing GCSS based on different cancer stage.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | 5-year GCCS | Log rank χ2 test | P | HR(95%CI) | P |
| 305.678 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| No. of LNs | |||||
| ≤6 | 23.1% | Reference | |||
| 7-14 | 44.3% | 0.581(0.511-0.661) | |||
| ≥15 | 58.1% | 0.373(0.325-0.427) | |||
| 200.635 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| No. of LNs | |||||
| ≤6 | 13.6% | Reference | |||
| 7-14 | 29.2% | 0.582(0.507-0.669) | |||
| ≥15 | 40.7% | 0.406(0.352-0.469) | |||
| 29.113 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| No. of LNs | |||||
| ≤6 | |||||
| 7-14 | 10.8% | Reference | |||
| ≥15 | 18.3% | 0.789(0.719-0.865) | |||
P values were adjusted for age, race, location, pathological grading, histotype stage and tumor stage as covariates.
NI: not included in the multivariate survival analysis.