Gastroenterology Research, ISSN 1918-2805 print, 1918-2813 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, Gastroenterol Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.gastrores.org

Original Article

Volume 2, Number 6, December 2009, pages 317-323


Prognostic Factors of Patients With Transmural Advanced Gastric Carcinoma

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Overall survival curve of the patients with transmural gastric carcinoma calculated by the method of Kaplan-Meier.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Survival according to nodal involvement. The survival rate for the patients with pN2 lymph node metastases was lower than the rate for pN1 and pN0 cases. (P = 0.0400, log-rank test).
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Survival according to lymph vessel invasion. The survival rate for patients with lymph vessel invasion was lower than the rate for the patients without lymph vessel invasion. (P = 0.0003, log-rank test).
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Survival according to blood transfusion. Survival rate for the patients that received blood transfusions more than or equal to 500 ml was lower than the rate for the patients that received less than 500 ml. (P = 0.0166, log-rank test).
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Survival according to lymph node ratio. Survival rate for patients with a lymph node ratio greater than or equal to 0.2 was lower then the rate for those with a lymph node ratio less than 0.2. (P = 0.0012, log-rank test).

Tables

Table 1. Univariate Analysis of The Prognostic Factors In Patients With Transmural Gastric Cancer
 
ParametersNo. of patients95% ConfidenceSurvival rate (%)P
Median survival (month) ± SEIntervalP*1-year3-years5-years
SE: Standard error, P *: Log-rank test, P†: Chi-square test, NS: Not significant
Age (years)NSNS
  ≤653025.0 ± 7.2527.88 – 48.77524020
  >651516.0 ± 9.020 – 33.67391313
GenderNSNS
  Male2721.0 ± 3.4414.25 – 27.75442525
  Female1827.0 ± 7.8011.70 – 42.3053410
Tumor locationNSNS
  Cardia930.0 ± 7.2815.73 – 44.2749320
  Corpus1118.0 ± 3.4811.17 – 24.83353535
  Antrum2224.0 ± 3.0318.07 – 29.93553535
  Diffuse300---
Tumor size (cm)NSNS
  >10 in diameter2424.0 ± 5.3013.61 – 34.39543618
  ≤10 in diameter2121.0 ± 2.2816.53 – 25.47432828
Depth of tumor invasionNSNS
  pT21162.0 ± 19.1224.52 – 99.48535326
  pT33418.0 ± 5.387.45 – 28.55462618
Lymph node metastases0.040.03
  pN010--786565
  pN12521.0 ± 2.3816.33 – 25.67372713
  pN21016.0 ± 6.393.47 – 28.53461111
StageNSNS
  I B3--100100100
  II1621.0 ± 5.0411.13 – 30.8746370
  III A1718.0 ± 4.848.52 – 27.48382525
  III B924.0 ± 6.0112.21 – 35.795113-
Grading0.017NS
  G16--100100100
  G2621.0 ± 9.193.0 – 39.050330
  G33318.0 ± 3.3911.36 – 24.64381919
Type of SurgeryNSNS
  Subtotal gastrectomy2224.0 ± 3.0318.07 – 29.93553535
  Total gastrectomy2320.0 ± 3.1613.81 – 26.1941280
Vascular invasionNSNS
  Absent2625.0 ± 5.0715.07 – 34.93543535
  Present1921.0 ± 2.0516.99 – 25.0139269
Lymph vessel invasion0.00030.001
  Absent1762.0 ± 22.9617.0 – 107.0806422
  Present2815.0 ± 2.5510.01 – 19.99291212
Blood transfusions0.01660.021
  < 500 ml2727.0 ± 6.8513.58 – 40.42574444
  ≥ 500 ml1816.0 ± 5.634.97 – 27.0332134
Lauren’s classificationNSNS
  Intestinal1625.0 ± 6.013.24 – 36.76634242
  Diffuse2918.0 ± 3.6210.90 – 25.1039258
Lymph node ratio0.00120.006
  LNR < 0.21224.0 ± 2.4519.19 – 28.81523420
  LNR ≥ 0.2335.0 ± 2.01.08 – 8.92---
All patients4523.0 ± 2.5118.07 – 27.93483119

 

Table 2. Multivariate Analysis of the Independent Prognostic Factors
 
ParametersRR95% CIP
P: Cox’s proportional hazards model. CI: Confidence Interval. RR: Relative Risk.
Lymph node metastases
  (pN1 vs pN0)1.110.285 – 4.3410.877
  (pN2 vs pN0)1.460.282 – 7.5440.652
Lymph vessel invasion (Extensive vs not extensive)1.390.444 – 4.3790.559
Blood transfusions (≥ 500 ml vs < 500 ml)1.010.433 – 2.3620.979
Lymph node ratio (≥ 0.2 vs < 0.2)4.471.168 – 17.1170.029