Dataset Information

Significant differences in the clinicopathological characteristics and survival of gastric cancer patients from two cancer centers in china and Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the clinicopathological data and long-term survival of gastric cancer patients in China and Korea.

Materials and methods

Patients who had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 1998 and 2009 in 2 high-volume institutions in both China (n=1,637) and Korea (n=2,231) were retrospectively evaluated. Clinicopathological variables, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and surgery-related complications were assessed for all patients and compared between the 2 institutions.

Results

Chinese patients included in the study were significantly older and had a significantly lower body mass index (BMI) than the Korean patients. Esophagogastric junction tumors were more frequent in Chinese patients. However, the number of patients with stage I gastric cancer, the number of harvested lymph nodes, and the number of total gastrectomies were significantly higher in the Korean population. Korean patients also presented with fewer undifferentiated tumors than Chinese patients. Furthermore, Korean patients had prolonged OS and PFS for stage III cancers only. BMI, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, tumor invasion, number of positive lymph nodes, and distant metastases were all independent factors affecting OS and PFS.

Conclusions

Although China and Korea are neighboring Asian countries, the clinicopathological characteristics of Chinese patients are significantly different from those of Korean patients. Korean gastric cancer patients had longer OS and PFS than Chinese patients. Influencing factors included TNM stage, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis.

SUBMITTER: Shen ZL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4389093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The prognostic relevance of gastric tumor location has been reported and debated. Our study was conducted to examine the differences in clinicopathological features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) between patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) and distal gastric cancer (DGC). Patients and Methods:Patients with PGC or DGC were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) during 1997-2017. Survival analysis was performed via Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Results:We reviewed 16,119 cases of gastric cancer patients, including 6,479 of PGC and 9,640 of DGC. PGC patients presented as older patients (61.5 versus 56.4 years, P<0.001) and more males (82.9% versus 68.2%, P<0.001). Compared with DGC, PGC was more likely to be in later pT stage (pT3 and pT4, 65.0% versus 52.8%, P<0.001) and lymph node metastasis (54.8% versus 50.9%, P<0.001). In univariate analysis, PGC patients had a worse survival outcome in stage I (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.42-2.94) but a better prognosis in stage IV (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) when compared to DGC patients. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that PGC was not an independent predictor for poor survival (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.14). Results from multivariate analysis also revealed that pT4, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, no gastrectomy, and Borrmann IV were independent predictors associated with poor survival for both PGC and DGC patients. Additional prognostic factors for PGC patients included underweight (BMI < 18.5) (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.58), linitis plastica (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25-3.65), and overweight (23 ? BMI <27.5) (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.90). During the 20-year study period, the 5-year OS increased significantly for both PGC and DGC, with the increase rate of 91.7% and 67.7%, respectively. Conclusion:In China, PGC significantly differed from DGC in clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors. However, there was no significant relationship between survival outcome and gastric tumor location.