4.7 Article

Positive lymph node ratio is an index in predicting prognosis for remnant gastric cancer with insufficient retrieved lymph node in R0 resection

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81663-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Key Research and Development Program for Scientific Innovation of Shenyang City [19-112-4-104]
  2. Millions of Leading Engineering Talents Program [XLYC1905004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For patients with remnant gastric cancer (RGC), the lymph node ratio (NR) is more accurate than pN staging in predicting prognosis, along with tumor size and lymphovascular invasion being significant factors. When the retrieved lymph node (RLN) count is 15, NR serves as an important and independent prognostic index for RGC, providing a more accurate prediction of patient outcomes.
The staging system of remnant gastric cancer (RGC) has not yet been established, with the current staging being based on the guidelines for primary gastric cancer. Often, surgeries for RGC fail to achieve the>15 lymph nodes needed for TNM staging. Compared with the pN staging system, lymph node ratio (NR) may be more accurate for RGC staging and prognosis prediction. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 208 patients who underwent R0 gastrectomy with curative intent and who have <= 15 retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs) for RGC between 2000 and 2014. The patients were divided into four groups on the basis of the NR cutoffs: rN0: 0; rN1:>0 and <= 1/6; rN2:>1/6 and <= 1/2; and rN3:>1/2. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for rN0, rN1, rN2, and rN3 were 84.3%, 64.7%, 31.5%, and 12.7%, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed that tumor size (p=0.005), lymphovascular invasion (p=0.023), and NR (p<0.001), but not pN stage (p=0.682), were independent factors for OS. When the RLN count is15, the NR is superior to pN as an important and independent prognostic index of RGC, thus predicting the prognosis of RGC patients more accurately.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available