Prognostic impact of anatomical extent of metastatic lymph node on gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study

Purpose Current gastric cancer staging systems overlook the anatomic extent of metastatic lymph nodes (AEMLNs). This study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of AEMLNs on gastric cancer (GC). Methods GC patients with metastatic lymph nodes (MLNs) undergoing curative surgery were retrospectively reviewed and assigned to perigastric (MLNs in station 1–6, PG) and extraperigastric group (7-12, with or without MLNs in PG area, EPG). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence patterns were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Results 662 patients were enrolled, 341 (51.5%) and 321 (48.5%) of whom were in the PG and EPG, respectively. After PSM (n = 195), EPG showed poorer 5-year OS (43.4% vs 54.5%, p = 0.014) and DFS (65.0% vs 73.4%, p = 0.068) than PG. EPG had higher incidence of peritoneal recurrence (PR) than PG (19.4% vs 7.4%, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis identified AEMLNs as prognostic factor for OS [HR = 1.409, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.062–1.868), DFS (HR = 1.600, 95% CI 1.059–2.416) and PR (HR = 3.708, 95% CI 1.685–8.160). Conclusions The anatomic extent of metastatic lymph nodes has an independent prognostic role for GC. Including this element may improve the accuracy of current staging systems (AU)

Prognostic impact of anatomical extent of metastatic lymph node on gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study.

PURPOSE: Current gastric cancer staging systems overlook the anatomic extent of metastatic lymph nodes (AEMLNs). This study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of AEMLNs on gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: GC patients with metastatic lymph nodes (MLNs) undergoing curative surgery were retrospectively reviewed and assigned to perigastric (MLNs in station 1-6, PG) and extraperigastric group (7-12, with or without MLNs in PG area, EPG). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence patterns were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: 662 patients were enrolled, 341 (51.5%) and 321 (48.5%) of whom were in the PG and EPG, respectively. After PSM (n = 195), EPG showed poorer 5-year OS (43.4% vs 54.5%, p = 0.014) and DFS (65.0% vs 73.4%, p = 0.068) than PG. EPG had higher incidence of peritoneal recurrence (PR) than PG (19.4% vs 7.4%, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis identified AEMLNs as prognostic factor for OS [HR = 1.409, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.062-1.868), DFS (HR = 1.600, 95% CI 1.059-2.416) and PR (HR = 3.708, 95% CI 1.685-8.160). CONCLUSIONS: The anatomic extent of metastatic lymph nodes has an independent prognostic role for GC. Including this element may improve the accuracy of current staging systems.