4.4 Article

Is it worthy of adding dissection of the superior mesenteric vein lymph node (14v) to standard D2 gastrectomy for distal gastric cancers with No. 6 lymph node metastasis?

Journal

CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1699-1706

Publisher

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-019-02103-0

Keywords

Gastric cancer; No; 14v lymph node; No; 6 metastasis; Lymphadenectomy; Prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272716]
  2. Shenyang Municipal Science and Technology Plan Project [17-231-1-49]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been widely recognized as standard surgical procedure for advanced gastric cancer, while the role of No. 14v lymphadenectomy in distal gastric cancer remains controversial. Methods Clinicopathological data of 793 distal gastric cancer patients who underwent at least a radical D2 lymphadenectomy with No. 6 nodes metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. Results Fifty patients received No. 14v lymphadenectomy. Patients with No. 14v nodes metastasis (21/50, 42.0%) had poor prognosis. The No. 14v nodes metastasis was not an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.075). In distal gastric cancer patients with No. 6 nodes metastasis, No. 14v lymphadenectomy deteriorated overall survival, what's more, No. 14v lymphadenectomy was an independent risk prognostic factor (hazard ratio: 1.404; 95% confidence interval 1.043-1.889; P = 0.025). There was no significant difference in overall or locoregional and other types of recurrence rate between the 14vD+ and the 14vD- groups. The proportion of complication rate was greater in 14vD+ group (P = 0.001). Conclusion Extended D2 gastrectomy including No. 14v lymphadenectomy seems to be associated with poor overall survival and increased complication rate of distal gastric cancer patients with No. 6 nodes metastasis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available