02 July 2015: Meta-Analysis
Survival after Gastrectomy in Node-Negative Gastric Cancer: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors
Yanming Zhou B , Feng Yu C , Lupeng Wu EF , Feng Ye G , Leilei Zhang E , Yumin Li A
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.893856
Med Sci Monit 2015; 21:1911-1919
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis is one of the most important prognostic factors for survival of patients with gastric cancer (GC) after surgical resection. Nevertheless, a considerable number of patients have node-negative disease. We performed the present systematic review to evaluate survival and identify prognostic factors in node-negative GC patients undergoing curative intent resection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Relevant studies published between January 2000 and January 2015 were identified by searching the PubMed database and reviewed systematically. Summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Thirty observational studies involving 12 504 patients were included in the review. Median 5-year overall survival was 84.3% (range, 53–96.3%). Pooled analysis showed that old age (RR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.13–1.42),
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection offers good overall survival for patients with node-negative GC. Tumor-related factors seem to have most prognostic significance.
Keywords:
Lymph Nodes - pathology, Stomach Neoplasms - surgery, Survival Rate
Background
Gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most common malignancy and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Lymph node metastasis is one of the most important prognostic factors for survival after curative gastrectomy [2]. However, many patients have node-negative disease on their pathologic examination. Nonetheless, data on survival of surgical resection patients with node-negative GC, as well as predictors of prognosis, are relatively limited [3–9]. Most available studies were conducted in a single institution and included small groups of patients. Therefore, we performed the present systematic review to evaluate survival and identify prognostic factors in node-negative GC patients undergoing curative intent resection.
Material and Methods
SYSTEMATIC SEARCH STRATEGY:
Using PubMed database, a systematic review was made of all peer-reviewed English-language papers published between January 2000 and January 2015 that reported patient survival after gastrectomy of node-negative GC. The following Medical Subject Headings terms were used: “gastric cancer,” “node negative,” or “lymph-node negative”. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for additional citations.
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION:
Studies reporting the results of 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of node-negative GC patients undergoing curative-intent resection were included. Studies that focused on molecular markers, abstracts, editorials, expert opinions, animal studies, and studies with fewer than 100 patients were excluded.
DATA ABSTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT:
Data regarding the following variables were extracted from each article by 2 authors (Yanming Zhou and Feng Yu) independently: first author, year of publication, study period, sample size, study population characteristics, and outcomes of interests. The quality of articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [10]. Discrepancies between the 2 reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Data are presented as median (range) unless otherwise stated. Risk estimates from univariate analysis or multivariate estimating survival were obtained from each study and meta-analyzed for the prognostic factors using a random-effects model. The pooled estimates for variables are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). If a study contained subgroups of GC (such as stages) and consequently multiple RR, the individual RR were combined to yield an overall RR and used in the final meta-analysis. Statistical significance was set at
Results
A total of 30 publications with 31 reports met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The characteristics of the patients included in the analyzed studies are summarized in Table 1 [3–9,11–33]. All studies were retrospective. Most reports originated from Asia (Japan, n=5; China, n=9; Korea, n=7; and other, n=3), followed by Europe (n =4) and the United States (n =3). These papers described 12504 patients. There were 8585 (68.6%) men and 3919 (31.4%) women. The median age ranged from 53 to 69.1 years. The median number of nodes examined ranged from 10.3 to 39.3.
The median follow-up period ranged from 36.5 to 124.6 months among the studies analyzed. Five-year OS was reported in all 31 reports with a median value of 84.3% (range, 53–96.3%). Table 2 demonstrates the survival rates stratified by patient subgroups.
Results of the meta-analysis are shown in Table 3. Old age, <D2 lymph node dissection, larger tumor, serosal invasion, and vessel invasion were found to be significantly associated with poor OS (Figures 1–5). In contrast, tumor location, histology and adjuvant chemotherapy did not affect survival significantly.
Five-year DFS was reported in 4 studies with a median value of 77.7% (range, 57.3–96.3%) [14,19,28,30]. We did not further analyze prognostic factors due to the small number of trials and relatively small patient samples.
Discussion
Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for node-negative GC patients. The median 5-year OS is 84.3% ranging from 53% to 96.3%. The discrepancy may be due to the variation in patient population, surgical experience on the part of the surgeon, and postoperative care at different centers.
Despite generally favorable therapeutic outcomes for node-negative GC, a subset of these patients may still have relatively poor outcomes, and therefore identification of prognostic factors may have important implications to postoperative surveillance and adjuvant therapy in these patients.
Old age is found to be associated with a poor outcome. The difference in survival between elderly and younger patients could in part be explained by the more limited survival expectancy of the elderly population, and also reflected by the higher prevalence of co-morbidity.
Tumor-related factors, including serosal invasion, larger tumor size, and vessel invasion, seem to have most prognostic significance. Serosal invasion increases tumor contact with surrounding organs or likelihood of peritoneal seeding. The high incidence of hematogenous dissemination in patients with a larger tumor size may explain the association between the larger tumor size and the poor outcome [25]. Node-negative GC with lymphatic and vascular invasion indicates a more aggressive disease. Growing evidence indicates that tumor lymphangiogenesis and angiogenesis play important roles in the progression of GC [34]. In addition, high lymphatic vessel density and microvessel density are shown to be correlated with a poor survival rate in human GC [35]. Therefore, other than lymphovascular invasion of tumor cells as an important prognostic factor in GC, targeting tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis and angiogenesis may also provide a novel therapeutic approach. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A and VEGF-C are 2 important molecules involved in GC development and metastasis by promoting angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. It has been shown that blocking angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis can suppresses GC growth markedly in an experimental setting [36]. Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized version of a murine monoclonal antibody for VEGF, is an important component of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer [37]. In a phase 3 trial of patients with advanced GC, although the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine-cisplatin did not significantly improve overall survival, it resulted in improved progression-free survival and overall response rate [38].
During dissemination of tumor cells to lymph nodes, lymphatic vessels provide a direct pathway for metastasis, and this pathway is often activated at an early stage in the metastatic process. Lymphatic invasion has previously been observed as a risk factor for micrometastasis in patients with node-negative GC [39]. As expected, extended lymphadenectomy (D2 or greater) may be more efficient than D1 lymphadenectomy in removing micrometastic foci, thus offering a survival advantage, as shown in the present meta-analysis. With the disease progressing, the likelihood of lymphatic invasion and micrometastasis increases, thus making it more likely that an extended lymphadenectomy would be associated with an improved outcome by stage [8].
We found that adjuvant therapy after resection did not provide a significant survival benefit for node-negative GC patients. This was consistent with the result of 1 large-scale phase III clinical trial, which showed adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin and capecitabine) did not significantly improve the 3-year disease-free survival for node-negative GC [40]. However, only 103 node-negative GC patients were enrolled in this study. The small sample size may have been insufficient to evaluate differences between the groups, and therefore further research is needed.
This analysis is limited by the heterogeneity of the studies included. There are no internationally accepted scaled definitions for old age or large tumor in GC surgery. The definition of elderly patients in the included reports varied from 58, 60, and 65 years [3,4,6,7,9,13,16,18,20–25,28–30]. Similarly, the definition of large tumor varied from 3, 4, 4.75, 5, 6.3, and 7 cm [4,7,9,13,15,17,18,20,21,23–30,33]. On the other hand, some authors did not specify the criteria at all [2227]. The interobserver variability may have caused detection bias. In addition, compared with advanced GC, early GC has less aggressive biological features and a more favorable prognosis. As most included studies did not perform independent assessment in this aspect, we were unable to analyze prognostic factors stratified by tumor stage. It is also important to note that variables of interest were not uniformly available from each study. Due to limited data, we did not analyze the prognostic significance of gross appearance (Borrmann type), Lauren classification, perineural invasion, and type of gastrectomy. Finally, some studies using immunohistochemical staining combining cytokeratin and vascular markers including CD31 and CD34 reported that D2–40 was more sensitive than standardized H&E alone in detecting lymphatic and vascular invasion [30]. However, lymphovascular invasion was evaluated by H&E staining alone in most centers. Thus, the clinical importance of these variables was underestimated.
Conclusions
The present analysis demonstrates that surgical resection offers a good OS for patients with node-negative GC. Tumor-related factors including tumor size and vascular invasion seem to have most prognostic significance.
References
1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Global cancer statistics: Cancer J Clin, 2011; 61; 69-90
2. Wu CW, Hsieh MC, Lo SS, Prognostic indicators for survival after curative resection for patients with carcinoma of the stomach: Dig Dis Sci, 1997; 42; 1265-69, pmid: 9201093
3. Bruno L, Nesi G, Montinaro F, Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcome indicators in node-negative gastric cancer: J Surg Oncol, 2000; 74; 30-32, pmid: 10861605
4. Hyung WJ, Lee JH, Choi SH, Prognostic impact of lymphatic and/or blood vessel invasion in patients with node-negative advanced gastric cancer: Ann Surg Oncol, 2002; 9; 562-67, pmid: 12095972
5. Kooby DA, Suriawinata A, Klimstra DS, Biologic predictors of survival in node-negative gastric cancer: Ann Surg, 2003; 237; 828-37, pmid: 12796579
6. Kim DY, Seo KW, Joo JK, Prognostic factors in patients with node-negative gastric carcinoma: a comparison with node-positive gastric carcinoma: World J Gastroenterol, 2006; 12; 1182-86, pmid: 16534868
7. Kunisaki C, Shimada H, Nomura M, Therapeutic strategy for patients with pN0 gastric carcinoma: J Surg Oncol, 2006; 94; 212-19, pmid: 16900514
8. Park SS, Park JM, Kim JH, Prognostic factors for patients with node-negative gastric cancer: Can extended lymph node dissection have a survival benefit?: J Surg Oncol, 2006; 94; 16-20, pmid: 16788938
9. Lee CC, Wu CW, Lo SS, Survival predictors in patients with node-negative gastric carcinoma: J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2007; 22; 1014-18, pmid: 17608847
10. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D: The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis, Ottawa Health Research Institute http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm
11. Deng J, Liang H, Sun D, Prognosis of gastric cancer patients with node-negative metastasis following curative resection: outcomes of the survival and recurrence: Can J Gastroenterol, 2008; 22; 835-39, pmid: 18925308
12. Otsuji E, Kuriu Y, Ichikawa D, Efficacy of prophylactic extended lymphadenectomy with gastrectomy for patients with node-negative advanced gastric carcinoma: Hepatogastroenterology, 2008; 55; 755-59, pmid: 18613448
13. Ichikawa D, Kubota T, Kikuchi S, Prognostic impact of lymphatic invasion in patients with node-negative gastric cancer: J Surg Oncol, 2009; 100; 111-14, pmid: 19475584
14. Baiocchi GL, Tiberio GA, Minicozzi AM, A multicentric Western analysis of prognostic factors in advanced, node-negative gastric cancer patients: Ann Surg, 2010; 252; 70-73, pmid: 20562605
15. Saito H, Kuroda H, Matsunaga T, Prognostic indicators in node-negative advanced gastric cancer patients: J Surg Oncol, 2010; 101; 622-25, pmid: 20461771
16. Biffi R, Botteri E, Cenciarelli S, Impact on survival of the number of lymph nodes removed in patients with node-negative gastric cancer submitted to extended lymph node dissection: Eur J Surg Oncol, 2011; 37; 305-11, pmid: 21288685
17. Cao L, Hu X, Zhang Y, Huang G, Adverse prognosis of clustered-cell versus single-cell micrometastases in pN0 early gastric cancer: J Surg Oncol, 2011; 103; 53-56, pmid: 21031429
18. Qiu MZ, Wang ZQ, Luo HY, Prognostic analysis in node-negative gastric cancer patients in China: Tumour Biol, 2011; 32; 489-92, pmid: 21181465
19. Seshadri RA, Jayanand SB, Ranganathan R, Prognostic factors in patients with node-negative gastric cancer: an Indian experience: World J Surg Oncol, 2011; 9; 48, pmid: 21554745
20. Jeong JY, Kim MG, Ha TK, Kwon SJ, Prognostic factors on overall survival in lymph node negative gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection: J Gastric Cancer, 2012; 12; 210-16, pmid: 23346492
21. Liu X, Cai H, Shi Y, Wang Y, Prognostic factors in patients with node-negative gastric cancer: a single center experience from China: J Gastrointest Surg, 2012; 16; 1123-27, pmid: 22488657
22. Sun D, Gong R, Wu H, Do patients with pN0 gastric cancer benefit from prophylactic extended lymphadenectomy?: Surg Oncol, 2012; 21; e7-11, pmid: 22071221
23. Wang J, Yu JC, Kang WM, Ma ZQ, Prognostic significance of intraoperative chemotherapy and extensive lymphadenectomy in patients with node-negative gastric cancer: J Surg Oncol, 2012; 105; 400-4, pmid: 22311818
24. Xu D, Huang Y, Geng Q: PLoS One, 2012; 7; e38681, pmid: 22723875
25. Chou HH, Kuo CJ, Hsu JT, Clinicopathologic study of node-negative advanced gastric cancer and analysis of factors predicting its recurrence and prognosis: Am J Surg, 2013; 205; 623-30, pmid: 23036602
26. Lee IS, Yook JH, Kim TH, Prognostic factors and recurrence pattern in node-negative advanced gastric cancer: Eur J Surg Oncol, 2013; 39; 136-40, pmid: 23148932
27. Strong VE, Song KY, Park CH, Comparison of disease-specific survival in the United States and Korea after resection for early-stage node-negative gastric carcinoma: J Surg Oncol, 2013; 107; 634-40, pmid: 23192297
28. Araki I, Hosoda K, Yamashita K, Prognostic impact of venous invasion in stage IB node-negative gastric cancer: Gastric Cancer, 2014 [Epub ahead of print]
29. Jiao XG, Deng JY, Zhang RP, Prognostic value of number of examined lymph nodes in patients with node-negative gastric cancer: World J Gastroenterol, 2014; 20; 3640-48, pmid: 24707149
30. Xu M, Huang CM, Zheng CH, Does tumor size improve the accuracy of prognostic predictions in node-negative gastric cancer (pT1-4aN0M0 stage)?: PLoS One, 2014; 9; e101061, pmid: 25003849
31. Dittmar Y, Schüle S, Koch A, Predictive factors for survival and recurrence rate in patients with node-negative gastric cancer-a European single-centre experience: Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2015; 400; 27-35, pmid: 25048355
32. Lee JH, Kim MG, Jung MS, Kwon SJ, Prognostic Significance of Lymphovascular Invasion in Node-Negative Gastric Cancer: World J Surg World J Surg, 2015; 39; 732-39
33. Jin LX, Moses LE, Squires MH, Factors Associated With Recurrence and Survival in Lymph Node-Negative Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A 7-Institution Study of the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative: Ann Surg, 2015 [Epub ahead of print]
34. Xu J, Zhang C, He Y, Lymphatic endothelial cell-secreted CXCL1 stimulates lymphangiogenesis and metastasis of gastric cancer: Int J Cancer, 2012; 130; 787-97, pmid: 21387301
35. Cao F, Hu YW, Li P, Lymphangiogenic and angiogenic microvessel density in chinese patients with gastric carcinoma: correlation with clinicopathologic parameters and prognosis: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2013; 14; 4549-52, pmid: 24083700
36. Wang X, Chen X, Fang J, Yang C, Overexpression of both VEGF-A and VEGF-C in gastric cancer correlates with prognosis, and silencing of both is effective to inhibit cancer growth: Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2013; 6; 586-97, pmid: 23573305
37. Li DB, Ye F, Wu XR, Preoperative administration of bevacizumab is safe for patients with colorectal liver metastases: World J Gastroenterol, 2013; 19; 761-68, pmid: 23431050
38. Ohtsu A, Shah MA, Van Cutsem E, Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study: J Clin Oncol, 2011; 29(30); 3968-76, pmid: 21844504
39. Arigami T, Natsugoe S, Uenosono Y, Lymphatic invasion using D2-40 monoclonal antibody and its relationship to lymph node micrometastasis in pN0 gastric cancer: Br J Cancer, 2005; 93; 688-93, pmid: 16136051
40. Bang YJ, Kim YW, Yang HKCLASSIC trial investigators, Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomized, controlled trial: Lancet, 2012; 379; 315-21, pmid: 22226517
In Press
Clinical Research
Combined Fibrinogen and Urinary α1-Microglobulin as Predictors of Respiratory Tract Infection in Children w...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951066
Database Analysis
Evaluation of Salivary Total Oxidant Status (TOS) and Total Antioxidant Status (TAS) in Orthodontic Patient...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.952052
Clinical Research
Presence and Impact of Fatigue in Patients With Multiple SclerosisMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.953344
Clinical Research
Levofloxacin-Induced Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Characteristics and Rational Use StrategiesMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951518
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 14,175,746
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,757,029
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,466,013
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 708,680
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387






