Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;32(2):186-196.
doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.02.06.

Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy

Affiliations

Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy

Jun Luo et al. Chin J Cancer Res. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with different PM distance for GC into a prediction nomogram.

Methods: Patients who underwent radical DG from June 2004 to June 2014 at Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University were included. The first endpoints of the prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5 cm increments) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards regression was performed using the training set, and the nomogram was constructed, patients were chronologically assigned to the training set for dates from June 1, 2004 to January 30, 2012 (n=493) and to the validation set from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (n=211).

Results: Among 704 patients with pTNM stage I, pTNM stage II, T1-2, T3-4, N0, differentiated type, tumor size ≤5.0 cm, a PM of (2.1-5.0) cmvs. PM≤2.0 cm showed a statistically significant difference in DFS and OS, while a PM>5.0 cm was not associated with any further improvement in DFS and OSvs. a PM of 2.1-5.0 cm. In patients with pTNM stage III, N1, N2-3, undifferentiated type, tumor size >5.0 cm, the PM distance was not significantly correlated with DFS and OS between patients with a PM of (2.1-5.0) cm and a PM≤2 cm, or between patients with a PM >5.0 cm and a PM of (2.1-5.0) cm, so there were no significant differences across the three PM groups. In the training set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.721 and 0.735, respectively, and in the validation set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.752 and 0.751, respectively.

Conclusions: It is necessary to obtain not less than 2.0 cm of PM distance in early-stage disease, while PM distance was not associated with long-term survival in later and more aggressive stages of disease because more advanced GC is a systemic disease. Different types of patients should be considered for removal of an individualized PM distance intra-operatively. We developed a universally applicable prediction model for accurately determining the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS and OS of GC patients according to their preoperative clinicopathologic characteristics and PM distance.

Keywords: Gastric cancer; distal gastrectomy; margin distance; nomograms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

1
1. Discrepancies of proximal margin (PM) and its relationship with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of gastric cancer patients. (A) Distribution of PM distance in 0.5 cm increments; (B) Kaplan-Meier analysis of DFS (P=0.022) and OS (P=0.003) according to PM distance (0−1.0, 1.1−1.5, 1.6−2.0, 2.1−2.5 cm).
2
2. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with different pTNM stages. (A) DFS according to: (a) entire cohort (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (b) stage I (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (c) stage II (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P=0.022), and (d) stage III (PM≤2.0 cm vs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.059); (B) OS according to: (a) entire cohort (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (b) stage I (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (c) stage II (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P=0.027), and (d) stage III (PM≤2.0 cm vs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.064).
3
3. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with different subgroup stratifications. (A) DFS according to: (a) T1−2 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (b) T3−4 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P=0.003), (c) N0 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (d) N1 stage (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.149), (e) N2−3 stage (PM≤2.0 cm vs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.079), (f) differentiated type (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (g) undifferentiated type (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.144), (h) tumor size ≤5.0 cm (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), and (i) tumor size >5.0 cm (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.167); (B) OS according to: (a) T1−2 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (b) T3−4 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cmvs. ≤2.0 cm, P=0.003), (c) N0 stage (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (d) N1 stage (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.220), (e) N2−3 stage (PM≤2.0 cm vs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.092), (f) differentiated type (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), (g) undifferentiated type (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.588), (h) tumor size ≤5.0 cm (PM 2.1−5.0 cm vs. ≤2.0 cm, P<0.001), and (i) tumor size >5.0 cm (PM≤2.0 cmvs. 2.1−5.0 cmvs. >5.0 cm, P=0.069).
4
4. Nomogram and its calibration of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of gastric cancer patients. (A) Nomogram predicting 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS (a) and OS (b) that was constructed based on selected variables with hazard ratios; (B) Calibration of nomogram in training set (a,c) and validation set (b,d). (a,b) DFS; (c,d) OS.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. - DOI - PubMed
    1. GBD 2017 Stomach Cancer Collaborators The global, regional, and national burden of stomach cancer in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:42–54. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30328-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EM, et al Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:439–49. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70070-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: The CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:1983–92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.5359. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources