Open Access

Tumor Depth Prediction of Gastric Cancer With a T4 Score

TANIGUCHI KIYOAKI 1
OTA MASAHO 1
YAMADA TAKUJI 1
SERIZAWA AKIKO 1
KOTAKE SHO 1
ITO SHUNICHI 1
SUZUKI KAZUOMI 1
  &  
YAMAMOTO MASALAZU 1

Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan

Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis Nov-Dec; 2(6): 641-647 DOI: 10.21873/cdp.10154
Received 23 June 2022 | Revised 21 July 2024 | Accepted 09 August 2022
Corresponding author
Kiyoaki Taniguchi, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. Tel: +81 3335381111, Fax: +81 352697507 kiyoaki.taniguchi@marianna-u.ac.jp

Abstract

Background/Aim: Peritoneal metastases are often found at surgery of pT4 gastric cancers, preventing R0 resection. In the event of successful R0 resection, distant metastases still occur in a sizeable proportion of patients. Estimation of the depth of invasion has a relatively low accuracy (57%-86%) compared with pathological findings. This study sought to develop a clinical score to distinguish between pathological stage T4 (pT4) and pT1-3 gastric cancer. Patients and Methods: Reviewing the data of 2,771 patients who had undergone gastrectomy at our hospital from January 1996-December 2016, we assessed demographic factors plus tumor markers, diameter, location, histology, and macroscopic type according to the fifth edition (2019) of the WHO classification. Significant factors on multivariate analysis were used to develop a pT4 gastric cancer depth prediction score (T4 score). Results: Multivariate analysis revealed that the clinical factors associated with pT4 disease were CA19-9 elevation, tumor diameter ≥50 mm, poorly cohesive type adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, and WHO macroscopic types 2-4. The T4 score was obtained by weighing these factors according to the β-coefficient. The optimum cutoff value of the T4 score was 4 points. A total of 79.4% of cases with a T4 score ≥4 points were stage pT4. A total of 93.9% of cases with a T4 score <4 points were stage pT1-3, with 91.1% sensitivity, 85.3% specificity, 79.4% positive predictive value, and 93.9% negative predictive value. Conclusion: T4 scoring can differentiate pT4 gastric cancer from pT1-3 gastric cancer.
Keywords: gastric cancer, receiver operating characteristics analysis, prediction score, tumor depth

According to the eighth edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, staging system (1), pT4 gastric cancer is categorized as tumor invasion that is contiguous with or extends beyond the serosa (pT4a), or invades adjacent structures (pT4b) (1). In the absence of metastatic disease, gastrectomy is performed. However, in pT4 disease, peritoneal metastases are often detected at laparotomy, preventing an R0 resection (2-4). Prognosis is guarded, as peritoneal (5) and distant (6) metastases often develop following surgery. Preoperative chemotherapy has been introduced to address this problem, and clinical studies from the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) (7) and the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) (8) have shown a survival advantage with NAC+ surgery vs. surgery alone. The 4-drug regimen of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin (FLOT4) has been used to further improve prognosis (9). An accurate invasion depth measurement of pT4 gastric cancer is indispensable for therapy choice.

Different modalities, including endoscopic ultrasound (10-17) and computed tomography CT (18-22), have been employed for assessment of tumor depth invasion, with each method having its own strengths and weaknesses. Measurement of gastric cancer depth has not correlated closely with pathological findings (57%-86%) (17).

We conducted a retrospective analysis of factors used in the clinical diagnosis and developed a pT4 gastric cancer depth prediction score (T4 score), to investigate whether the T4 score could accurately distinguish pT4 disease from pT1-3 disease.

Patients and Methods

We used the data of 2,771 cases of primary gastric cancer treated with gastrectomy between 1996 and 2016. These cases were previously analyzed in another study looking at the ability to distinguish between Stage III and IV disease using a clinical score (23). The need for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital as the study was retrospective. TNM categories were determined using the recent UICC classification of gastric carcinoma (Table I) (1).

We investigated multiple factors as potential predictors of pT4 disease, including demographics, and used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to set cutoffs for serum CEA ≤5.0 ng/ml vs. ≥5.1 ng/ml, serum CA19-9 ≤37 U/ml vs. ≥38 U/ml, and tumor diameter (≤49 mm vs. ≥50 mm). In order to assess the predictive values of anatomical location, the stomach was divided into the fundus, corpus, antrum, and pylorus. Investigation of the histological and macroscopic types (Types 0-4) was also performed. Both macroscopic and histological types were labeled according to the WHO classification of gastric carcinoma (24).

Statistical analysis. We initially investigated the association between pretreatment factors and pathologic stage (pT4 vs. pT1-3) by univariate logistic regression analysis, followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis of the factors identified as explanatory variables. Subsequently, factors predictive of pT4 disease were weighted, corresponding to the relative magnitude of the β-coefficient to obtain the T4 score. ROC analysis was then performed. The cutoff value of the T4 score was derived from the ROC curve by determination of the Youden index.

The accuracy of the T4 score for pathologic stage (pT4 vs. pT1-3) was evaluated in the case cohort using the chi-squared test. All analyses were performed using commercial software (JMP ver. 15, SAS Institute, Cary NC, USA).

Results

Univariate analysis. The associations between pT-category (pT4 vs. pT1-3) and factors derived from univariate analysis are shown in Table II.

A tumor diameter ≥50 mm, sex, serum CEA ≥5.1 ng/ml, and serum CA19-9 ≥38 U/m were significantly associated with pT4 disease. Regarding the influence of tumor anatomical subsites, histology of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and mucinous carcinoma, and WHO macroscopic tumor types 2, 3, and 4 correlated positively with pT4 disease.

Multivariate analysis. A total of 22 factors that were significant according to univariate analysis were used as covariates for multivariate logistic regression analysis. The factors that remained significant for discriminating T-category (pT4 vs. pT1-3) by multivariate analysis were tumor marker CA19-9 level, tumor diameter ≥50 mm, WHO macroscopic type (type 0, type 2, type 3, and type 4), poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and mucinous histology. However, the other 14 factors, including macroscopic type 1, were not independent predictors (Table II).

Establishment of the T4 prediction score. The T4 score was generated by assigning points to each of the factors identified by multivariate analysis. The factors were weighted according to a non-standardized β-coefficient’s relative magnitude. One point was assigned for poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma and mucinous histology. Two points were assigned for elevated CA19-9 and for macroscopic type 2. Three points were assigned for macroscopic type 3 or 4. A tumor diameter ≥50 mm was assigned 4 points due to the relative β-coefficient being approximately four times that for the mucinous histology, which was assigned one point (Table III).

ROC analysis was then performed to identify the optimal cut-off value for the T4 score, which, based on the Youden index, was set at 4 points (Figure 1). The accuracy of a T4 score ≥4 points for identifying pT4 disease was 87.5% [95% confidence interval (CI)=86.4-88.6%]. When we investigated the value of distinguishing pT4 gastric cancer from pT1-3 gastric cancer by the T4 score, its sensitivity was 91.1% (95%CI=89.6-92.5%), specificity was 85.3% (95%CI=84.4-86.2%), positive predictive value was 79.4% (95%CI=78.1-80.6%), and negative predictive value was 93.9% (95%CI=92.9-94.9%) (Table IV).

Discussion

We generated a new prediction score for pT4 gastric cancer (the T4 score) by analyzing preoperative factors in 2,771 cases. This score was effective in distinguishing between pT4 from pT1-3 disease prior to surgery.

Peritoneal metastases are often found with pT4 gastric cancer. If they are macroscopic, an R0 resection is impossible (2-5). Even if radical excision is performed in the absence of obvious peritoneal disease, metachronous peritoneal metastases can occur and have a poor prognosis even with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (6). pT4 gastric cancer is categorized as a tumor invasion that is contiguous with the peritoneal cavity or that penetrates the serosa with exposure to the peritoneal cavity. Moreover, serosa-exposed subgroups of T4a gastric cancer have been identified as a significant risk factor for peritoneal recurrence in patients undergoing curative gastrectomy (25). Therefore, it takes expectation of the preoperative chemotherapy for treatment outcome improvement. Smyth et al. said that treatment with chemotherapy before surgery increases the chance for curative resection, eliminates early microscopic spread, and allows an in vivo response assessment of treatment (26). TNM categories T3-4 and N1.3 were selected as candidates for perioperative chemotherapy in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the validity of clinical staging in Stomach Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG)1302A (27). Above all, it is important to detect the pT4 disease association with metachronous peritoneal metastases.

The different modalities employed for measurement of tumor invasion depth all have strengths and weaknesses. Clinical staging of T category is relatively inaccurate (57%-89%) compared with pathological diagnosis. Because of the lack of objective criteria for assessing the depth of invasion, endoscopic staging is often based on clinical experience. Although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is useful, it is difficult to assess the depth of ulcerated lesions, and its accuracy is not improved over that of standard endoscopy (17). It has been reported that narrow band imaging (NBI) achieves 92% accuracy for assessing the depth of invasion of early gastric cancer. However, NBI is only useful in early gastric cancer because it is limited to the mucosal surface (17).

In this study, we investigated preoperative factors related to depth of tumor invasion and generated the T4 score through weighting of each factor to obtain a useful predictor of the depth of invasion of gastric cancer.

Staging laparoscopy was performed in cases of suspected peritoneal spread, to spare the patient from an unnecessary resection (28,29). However, it was difficult to detect tumor invasion beyond the serosa.

There are few reports of scores for pT staging. One scoring system for predicting metastases to regional lymph nodes has been reported to have a specificity and sensitivity of 65.7% and 83.5%, respectively (30). We have previously reported a score that can distinguish Stage III/IV from Stage I/II disease (23). Chemotherapy with or without surgery is the first-line treatment for stage III/IV gastric cancer, while surgery is the first-line treatment for stage I/II gastric cancer. When distinguishing between stage III/IV gastric cancer and stage I/II gastric cancer by the Clinical Stage Prediction score we found a sensitivity of 78.7%, specificity of 92.1%, positive predictive value of 86.0%, and negative predictive value of 87.5% (23). A depth-predicting score predicting intramucosal and minute submucosal (M-SM1; <500 μm in depth) and deeper submucosal invasion (SM2; ≥500 μm in depth) from characteristic endoscopic findings such as location of the tumor, its macroscopic type, its size, and the endoscopic findings has been reported to be an accurate predictor of the success of endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer (31). However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no other reports of an algorithm predicting pT4 gastric cancer. It has been reported that preoperative chemotherapy may improve outcomes for pT4 disease, suggesting that an accurate method of predicting the tumor depth invasion before planned surgery could be useful.

There are many reports of prognostic indicators for gastric cancer, including site of regional lymph node involvement (32), number of involved regional lymph nodes (33-35), regional lymph node involvement ratio (36,37), distant metastases (32), cytodiagnosis by peritoneal lavage (38,39), tumor size (40), macroscopic type (41,42), location (43,44), patient age (45,46), patient sex (47), lymphatic invasion (48), venous invasion (49), histologic type (50), serosal invasion on a macroscopic scale (51), CEA and CA19-9 (51,52), and lymphadenectomy extent (53-55). Most of these factors are assessable before treatment initiation.

Pretreatment factors in the T4 score have prognostic value. The pretreatment factors in the T4 score are associated with prognosis, its objectivity and versatility. Moreover, there have been no previous reports of a score that can be used to decide whether a patient should receive a treatment which is the function of the T4 score. The sensitivity of the T4 score may be further improved by adding factors related to nutritional status, such as albumin or prealbumin, tumor markers, such as CA125 or AFP (56), or a biomarker such as DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (57).

Conclusion

The T4 score uses weighted factors to predict the depth of invasion of pT4 gastric cancer. This allows planning of the optimal treatment strategy.

Conflicts of Interest

The Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study.

Authors’ Contributions

T.K. made substantial contributions to the conception, design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of data, and participated in drafting the article. O.M. made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of data, and participated in revising it critically for important intellectual content. Y.T. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, and participated in drafting the article. S.A. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, and participated in drafting the article. K.S. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, and participated in drafting the article. I.S. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, and participated in drafting the article. S.K. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, and participated in drafting the article. Y.T. made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of data, and participated in revising it critically for important intellectual content. All Authors gave final approval of the version to be published.

Acknowledgements

The Authors thank Libby Cone, MD, MA, from Yamada Translation Bureau, Inc. (https://www.ytrans.com/home.html) for editing drafts of this manuscript.

References

1 Brierley JD Gospodarowicz MK & Wittekind C C TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
2 D’Angelica M Gonen M Brennan MF Turnbull AD Bains M & Karpeh MS Patterns of initial recurrence in completely resected gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 240(5) 808 - 816 2004. PMID: 15492562. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000143245.28656.15
3 Deng J Liang H Wang D Sun D Pan Y & Liu Y Investigation of the recurrence patterns of gastric cancer following a curative resection. Surg Today. 41(2) 210 - 215 2011. PMID: 21264756. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-009-4251-y
4 Liu D Lu M Li J Yang Z Feng Q Zhou M Zhang Z & Shen L The patterns and timing of recurrence after curative resection for gastric cancer in China. World J Surg Oncol. 14(1) 305 2016. PMID: 27931221. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-1042-y
5 Spolverato G Ejaz A Kim Y Squires MH Poultsides GA Fields RC Schmidt C Weber SM Votanopoulos K Maithel SK & Pawlik TM Rates and patterns of recurrence after curative intent resection for gastric cancer: a United States multi-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 219(4) 664 - 675 2014. PMID: 25154671. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.062
6 Zhu BY Yuan SQ Nie RC Li SM Yang LR Duan JL Chen YB & Zhang XS Prognostic factors and recurrence patterns in T4 gastric cancer patients after curative resection. J Cancer. 10(5) 1181 - 1188 2019. PMID: 30854127. DOI: 10.7150/jca.28993
7 Cunningham D Allum WH Stenning SP Thompson JN Van de Velde CJ Nicolson M Scarffe JH Lofts FJ Falk SJ Iveson TJ Smith DB Langley RE Verma M Weeden S Chua YJ & MAGIC Trial Participants Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 355(1) 11 - 20 2006. PMID: 16822992. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa055531
8 Ychou M Boige V Pignon JP Conroy T Bouché O Lebreton G Ducourtieux M Bedenne L Fabre JM Saint-Aubert B Genève J Lasser P & Rougier P Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 29(13) 1715 - 1721 2011. PMID: 21444866. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0597
9 Al-Batran SE Homann N Pauligk C Goetze TO Meiler J Kasper S Kopp HG Mayer F Haag GM Luley K Lindig U Schmiegel W Pohl M Stoehlmacher J Folprecht G Probst S Prasnikar N Fischbach W Mahlberg R Trojan J Koenigsmann M Martens UM Thuss-Patience P Egger M Block A Heinemann V Illerhaus G Moehler M Schenk M Kullmann F Behringer DM Heike M Pink D Teschendorf C Löhr C Bernhard H Schuch G Rethwisch V von Weikersthal LF Hartmann JT Kneba M Daum S Schulmann K Weniger J Belle S Gaiser T Oduncu FS Güntner M Hozaeel W Reichart A Jäger E Kraus T Mönig S Bechstein WO Schuler M Schmalenberg H Hofheinz RD & FLOT4-AIO Investigators Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 393(10184) 1948 - 1957 2019. PMID: 30982686. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1
10 Smith JW Brennan MF Botet JF Gerdes H & Lightdale CJ Preoperative endoscopic ultrasound can predict the risk of recurrence after operation for gastric carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 11(12) 2380 - 2385 1993. PMID: 8246026. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.12.2380
11 Bentrem D Gerdes H Tang L Brennan M & Coit D Clinical correlation of endoscopic ultrasonography with pathologic stage and outcome in patients undergoing curative resection for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 14(6) 1853 - 1859 2007. PMID: 17357856. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-006-9037-5
12 Tio TL Coene PP Schouwink MH & Tytgat GN Esophagogastric carcinoma: preoperative TNM classification with endosonography. Radiology. 173(2) 411 - 417 1989. PMID: 2678255. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.173.2.2678255
13 Hwang SW Lee DH Lee SH Park YS Hwang JH Kim JW Jung SH Kim NY Kim YH Lee KH Kim HH Park DJ Lee HS Jung HC & Song IS Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector-row computed tomography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 25(3) 512 - 518 2010. PMID: 20370729. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06106.x
14 Xi WD Zhao C & Ren GS Endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative staging of gastric cancer: determination of tumor invasion depth, nodal involvement and surgical resectability. World J Gastroenterol. 9(2) 254 - 257 2003. PMID: 12532442. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v9.i2.254
15 Mocellin S & Pasquali S Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2) CD009944 2015. PMID: 25914908. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009944.pub2
16 Lee HH Lim CH Park JM Cho YK Song KY Jeon HM & Park CH Low accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for detailed T staging in gastric cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 10 190 2012. PMID: 22978534. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-190
17 Fairweather M Jajoo K Sainani N Bertagnolli MM & Wang J Accuracy of EUS and CT imaging in preoperative gastric cancer staging. J Surg Oncol. 111(8) 1016 - 1020 2015. PMID: 25872753. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23919
18 Hasegawa S Yoshikawa T Shirai J Fujikawa H Cho H Doiuchi T Yoshida T Sato T Oshima T Yukawa N Rino Y Masuda M & Tsuburaya A A prospective validation study to diagnose serosal invasion and nodal metastases of gastric cancer by multidetector-row CT. Ann Surg Oncol. 20(6) 2016 - 2022 2013. PMID: 23266583. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2817-1
19 Kwee RM & Kwee TC Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 25(15) 2107 - 2116 2007. PMID: 17513817. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5224
20 Kim HJ Kim AY Oh ST Kim JS Kim KW Kim PN Lee MG & Ha HK Gastric cancer staging at multi-detector row CT gastrography: comparison of transverse and volumetric CT scanning. Radiology. 236(3) 879 - 885 2005. PMID: 16020558. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2363041101
21 Chen CY Hsu JS Wu DC Kang WY Hsieh JS Jaw TS Wu MT & Liu GC Gastric cancer: preoperative local staging with 3D multi-detector row CT—correlation with surgical and histopathologic results. Radiology. 242(2) 472 - 482 2007. PMID: 17255419. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2422051557
22 Makino T Fujiwara Y Takiguchi S Tsuboyama T Kim T Nushijima Y Yamasaki M Miyata H Nakajima K Mori M & Doki Y Preoperative T staging of gastric cancer by multi-detector row computed tomography. Surgery. 149(5) 672 - 679 2011. PMID: 21310453. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.12.003
23 Taniguchi K Ota M Yamada T Serizawa A Noguchi T Amano K Kotake S Ito S Ikari N Omori A & Yamamoto M Staging of gastric cancer with the Clinical Stage Prediction score. World J Surg Oncol. 17(1) 47 2019. PMID: 30849974. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1589-5
24 Nagtegaal ID Odze RD Klimstra D Paradis V Rugge M Schirmacher P Washington KM Carneiro F Cree IA & WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 76(2) 182 - 188 2020. PMID: 31433515. DOI: 10.1111/his.13975
25 Nakamura K Tajima K Kanamori K Yatabe K Ogimi M Higuchi T Yamamoto M Hara H Kazuno A Nabeshima K Nomura E & Koyanagi K Impact of subclassification of serosal invasion on the survival of patients with T4a gastric cancer. In Vivo. 36(4) 1923 - 1929 2022. PMID: 35738632. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12913
26 Smyth EC Nilsson M Grabsch HI van Grieken NC & Lordick F Gastric cancer. Lancet. 396(10251) 635 - 648 2020. PMID: 32861308. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31288-5
27 Fukagawa T Katai H Mizusawa J Nakamura K Sano T Terashima M Ito S Yoshikawa T Fukushima N Kawachi Y Kinoshita T Kimura Y Yabusaki H Nishida Y Iwasaki Y Lee SW Yasuda T Sasako M & Stomach Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group A prospective multi-institutional validity study to evaluate the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of pathological stage III gastric cancer (JCOG1302A). Gastric Cancer. 21(1) 68 - 73 2018. PMID: 28194522. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-017-0701-1
28 Sand J Marnela K Airo I & Nordback I Staging of abdominal cancer by local anesthesia outpatient laparoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology. 43(12) 1685 - 1688 1996. PMID: 8975989.
Pubmed |
29 Charukhchyan SA & Lucas GW Laparoscopy and lesser sac endoscopy in gastric carcinoma operability assessment. Am Surg. 64(2) 160 - 164 1998. PMID: 9486890.
Pubmed |
30 Zhang Y Zhu Z Sun Z Wang Z Zheng X & Xu H Preoperative predicting score of lymph node metastasis for gastric cancer. Tumour Biol. 35(10) 10437 - 10442 2014. PMID: 25053600. DOI: 10.1007/s13277-014-2363-5
31 Abe S Oda I Shimazu T Kinjo T Tada K Sakamoto T Kusano C & Gotoda T Depth-predicting score for differentiated early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 14(1) 35 - 40 2011. PMID: 21327924. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-011-0002-z
32 Maruyama K Gunvén P Okabayashi K Sasako M & Kinoshita T Lymph node metastases of gastric cancer. General pattern in 1931 patients. Ann Surg. 210(5) 596 - 602 1989. PMID: 2818028. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198911000-00005
33 Adachi Y Kamakura T Mori M Baba H Maehara Y & Sugimachi K Prognostic significance of the number of positive lymph nodes in gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg. 81(3) 414 - 416 1994. PMID: 8173916. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800810331
34 Fujii K Isozaki H Okajima K Nomura E Niki M Sako S Izumi N Mabuchi H Nishiguchi K & Tanigawa N Clinical evaluation of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer defined by the fifth edition of the TNM classification in comparison with the Japanese system. Br J Surg. 86(5) 685 - 689 1999. PMID: 10361195. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01115.x
35 Bando E Yonemura Y Taniguchi K Fushida S Fujimura T & Miwa K Outcome of ratio of lymph node metastasis in gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 9(8) 775 - 784 2002. PMID: 12374661. DOI: 10.1007/BF02574500
36 Takagane A Terashima M Abe K Araya M Irinoda T Yonezawa H Nakaya T Inaba T Oyama K Fujiwara H & Saito K Evaluation of the ratio of lymph node metastasis as a prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2(2) 122 - 128 1999. PMID: 11957084. DOI: 10.1007/s101200050034
37 Yu W Choi GS Whang I & Suh IS Comparison of five systems for staging lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 84(9) 1305 - 1309 1997. PMID: 9313721.
Pubmed |
38 Bando E Yonemura Y Takeshita Y Taniguchi K Yasui T Yoshimitsu Y Fushida S Fujimura T Nishimura G & Miwa K Intraoperative lavage for cytological examination in 1,297 patients with gastric carcinoma. Am J Surg. 178(3) 256 - 262 1999. PMID: 10527450. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00162-2
39 Benevolo M Mottolese M Cosimelli M Tedesco M Giannarelli D Vasselli S Carlini M Garofalo A & Natali PG Diagnostic and prognostic value of peritoneal immunocytology in gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 16(10) 3406 - 3411 1998. PMID: 9779720. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3406
40 Adachi Y Oshiro T Mori M Maehara Y & Sugimachi K Tumor size as a simple prognostic indicator for gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 4(2) 137 - 140 1997. PMID: 9084850. DOI: 10.1007/BF02303796
41 An JY Kang TH Choi MG Noh JH Sohn TS & Kim S Borrmann type IV: an independent prognostic factor for survival in gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 12(8) 1364 - 1369 2008. PMID: 18516653. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0516-9
42 Wang BB Liu CG Lu P Latengbaolide A & Lu Y Log-normal censored regression model detecting prognostic factors in gastric cancer: a study of 3018 cases. World J Gastroenterol. 17(23) 2867 - 2872 2011. PMID: 21734796. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i23.2867
43 Wakatsuki K Takayama T Ueno M Matsumoto S Enomoto K Tanaka T & Nakajima Y Characteristics of gastric cancer with esophageal invasion and aspects of surgical treatment. World J Surg. 33(7) 1446 - 1453 2009. PMID: 19412568. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0053-z
44 Zhang M Zhu GY Zhang HF Gao HY Han XF & Xue YW Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis of mucinous gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 102(1) 64 - 67 2010. PMID: 20578080. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21533
45 Bando E Kojima N Kawamura T Takahashi S Fukushima N & Yonemura Y Prognostic value of age and sex in early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 91(9) 1197 - 1201 2004. PMID: 15449274. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4541
46 Smith DD Schwarz RR & Schwarz RE Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J Clin Oncol. 23(28) 7114 - 7124 2005. PMID: 16192595. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.14.621
47 Bando E Kojima N Kawamura T Takahashi S Fukushima N & Yonemura Y Prognostic value of age and sex in early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 91(9) 1197 - 1201 2004. PMID: 15449274. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4541
48 Maehara Y Oshiro T Baba H Ohno S Kohnoe S & Sugimachi K Lymphatic invasion and potential for tumor growth and metastasis in patients with gastric cancer. Surgery. 117(4) 380 - 385 1995. PMID: 7716718. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6060(05)80056-x
49 Maehara Y Kabashima A Koga T Tokunaga E Takeuchi H Kakeji Y & Sugimachi K Vascular invasion and potential for tumor angiogenesis and metastasis in gastric carcinoma. Surgery. 128(3) 408 - 416 2000. PMID: 10965312. DOI: 10.1067/msy.2000.107265
50 Marrelli D Pedrazzani C Corso G Neri A Di Martino M Pinto E & Roviello F Different pathological features and prognosis in gastric cancer patients coming from high-risk and low-risk areas of Italy. Ann Surg. 250(1) 43 - 50 2009. PMID: 19561483. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ad6487
51 Bando E Kawamura T Kinoshita K Takahashi S Maeda A Osada S Tsubosa Y Yamaguchi S Uesaka K & Yonemura Y Magnitude of serosal changes predicts peritoneal recurrence of gastric cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 197(2) 212 - 222 2003. PMID: 12892799. DOI: 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00539-8
52 Dilege E Mihmanli M Demir U Ozer K Bostanci O Kaya C Aksakal O & Sakiz D Prognostic value of preoperative CEA and CA 19-9 levels in resectable gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 57(99-100) 674 - 677 2010. PMID: 20698248.
Pubmed |
53 Songun I Putter H Kranenbarg EM Sasako M & van de Velde CJ Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 11(5) 439 - 449 2010. PMID: 20409751. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70070-X
54 Wu CW Hsiung CA Lo SS Hsieh MC Chen JH Li AF Lui WY & Whang-Peng J Nodal dissection for patients with gastric cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 7(4) 309 - 315 2006. PMID: 16574546. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70623-4
55 Miwa K Miyazaki I Sahara H Fujimura T Yonemura Y Noguchi M & Falla R Rationale for extensive lymphadenectomy in early gastric carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 72(6) 1518 - 1524 1995. PMID: 8519670. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1995.540
56 Liu X Cheng Y Sheng W Lu H Xu Y Long Z Zhu H & Wang Y Clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors in alpha-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancers: analysis of 104 cases. J Surg Oncol. 102(3) 249 - 255 2010. PMID: 20740583. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21624
57 Suzuki O Yamaguchi T Fukuchi M Mochiki E Arai T Akagi K & Ishida H Prediction model for gastric cancer with DNA mismatch repair deficiency. Anticancer Res. 41(2) 975 - 982 2021. PMID: 33517304. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14851