Dataset Information

Stage-stratified analysis of prognostic significance of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.

ABSTRACT: The prognostic significance of tumor size in gastric cancer is not well defined. The objective of this study was to identify the prognostic value of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.We retrospectively reviewed a total of 1800 patients with gastric cancer admitted to our hospital between 1997 and 2007. These patients were divided into two groups according to tumor size: small size group (SSG, tumor ?5 cm) and large size group (LSG, tumor >5 cm). We compared clinico-pathologic features of the two groups and investigated the prognostic factors by performing univariate, multivariate, and stage- stratified analyses according to tumor size.LSG had more aggressive clinico-pathologic features than SSG. Tumor size was an independent prognostic indicator in patients with gastric cancer. In a stratified-pT, pN, and pTNM analysis, survival of patients with LSG was significantly worse than that of patients with SSG and advanced stage. Tumor size was not a significant predictor of survival in patients with early stage tumors. Large tumor size was associated with shorter survival in patients with stages N0, N1, N2, and N3, and stages I, II, III, and IV.Tumor size is a simple and practical prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer. Tumor size could supplement clinical staging in the future.

SUBMITTER: Zu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3559879 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stage-stratified analysis of prognostic significance of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.

Zu Hongliang H Wang Feng F Ma Yan Y Xue Yingwei Y

PloS one 20130130 1

<h4>Background</h4>The prognostic significance of tumor size in gastric cancer is not well defined. The objective of this study was to identify the prognostic value of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively reviewed a total of 1800 patients with gastric cancer admitted to our hospital between 1997 and 2007. These patients were divided into two groups according to tumor size: small size group (SSG, tumor ≤5 cm) and large size group (LSG, tumor >5 cm). We com ...[more]

PMID: 23382906

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurately distinguishing serosal invasion in patients with gastric cancer (GC) prior to surgery can be difficult. Molecular analysis of peritoneal fluid (MAPF) for free cancer cells with higher sensitivity than other methods; however, its prognostic value for GC remains controversial, precluding its application in clinical practice.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and other databases were systematically searched. Thirty-one studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and peritoneal recurrence-free survival (PRF).ResultsThe current meta-analysis focused on patients with GC and negative cytological diagnoses. The results showed that positive MAPF status (MAPF+) led to poorer prognoses for OS (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.99-3.37), DFS (HR 4.92, 95% CI 3.28-7.37) and PRF (HR 2.81, 95% CI 2.12-3.72) compared with negative MAPF status (MAPF-). Moreover, among the patients with GC who received curative treatment, the MAPF+ patients had poorer prognoses for OS (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.49-4.29), DFS (HR 3.90, 95% CI 2.74-5.57) and PRF (HR 5.45, 95% CI 3.70-8.03). A meta-analysis of multivariate-adjusted HRs demonstrated that MAPF+ status was an independent prognostic factor for patients with GC who underwent curative treatment (OS: HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.47-3.28; PRF: HR 3.44, 95% CI 2.01-5.87). Using the identical target genes (CEA, CEA/CK20) as molecular markers, the patients with GC who were MAPF+ had significantly worse prognoses for OS (CEA: HR 3.03, 95% CI 2.29-4.01; CEA/CK20: HR 4.24, 95% CI 2.42-7.40), DFS (CEA: HR 3.99, 95% CI 2.24-7.12; CEA/CK20: HR 4.31, 95% CI 1.49-2.48) and PRF (CEA: HR 4.45, 95% CI 2.72-7.31; CEA/CK20: HR 6.46, 95% CI 3.62-11.55) than the patients who were MAPF-.Conclusion/significanceThe above results demonstrate that MAPF could be a prognostic indicator for patients with GC who have a negative cytological diagnosis and/or are receiving curative treatment. MAPF could provide clinicians with additional prognostic information that could aid in developing individualized treatment plans prior to surgery. The widely used target genes CEA, CEA/CK20 were confirmed to be valuable MAPF markers for predicting the prognosis of GC.

Dataset Information

Stage-stratified analysis of prognostic significance of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.

Publications

Stage-stratified analysis of prognostic significance of tumor size in patients with gastric cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets