首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Comparison of 4 lymph node staging systems for the prognostic prediction of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma with ≤15 retrieved lymph nodes
Institution:1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People''s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong Province, PR China;2. Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, 515041, Guangdong Province, PR China;3. The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, PR China;1. Fiona Stanley Hospital, Western Australia, Australia;2. Department of General Surgery, St. James''s Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland;3. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia;4. Department of Urology, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland;5. Department of Surgery, University College London, London, UK;6. Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry, Northern Ireland, UK;1. Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands;2. Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;4. Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands;5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands;7. Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;8. Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;9. Department of Surgical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands;1. Washington Cancer Institute, Program in Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Washington, DC, USA;2. Westat, Rockville, MD, USA;1. UGC Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, IBIMA, Málaga, Spain;2. Department of Medical Oncology, IMIBIC, Universidad de Córdoba, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain;3. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain;4. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain;5. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain;6. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario Valencia, Universidad de Valencia, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain;7. Department of Medical Oncology, Instituto Oncológico Dr. Rosell, Barcelona, Spain;8. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), University Complutense, CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain;9. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Virgen del Rocío, IBIS, Sevilla, Spain;10. Department of Medical Oncology, IRYCIS, CIBERONC, Alcalá University, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain;11. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain;12. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain;13. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital de Lleida Arnau de Vilanova, Lérida, Spain;14. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón (IISA), Zaragoza, Spain;15. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain;p. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante, Spain;1. Department of General Surgery, Guy''s and St Thomas'' NHS Trust, London, UK;2. Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth University Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK;3. Department of General Surgery, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK;4. School of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK;5. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King''s College London, London, UK;6. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;1. Sarcoma, Melanoma and Rare Tumors Surgery Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy;2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy;3. Business Controlling Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
Abstract:BackgroundDirectly applying the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) staging system to evaluate the prognosis of patients with esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (AEG) might lead to under-staging, when insufficient lymph nodes were retrieved during surgery. The prognostic value of 4 lymph nodes staging systems, 8th AJCC TNM N stage, lymph node ratio (LNR), log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS), and negative lymph nodes (NLN), in AEG patients having ≤15 retrieved lymph nodes were compared.Methods869 AEG patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2012 with ≤15 retrieved lymph nodes were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) with 8th AJCC TNM N stage, LNR, LODDS, and NLN respectively. Predictive survival ability was assessed and compared using linear trend χ2 score, likelihood ratio (LR) test, Akaike information criterion (AIC), Harrell concordance index (C-index), and Receiver Operative Curve (ROC).ResultsThe N stage, LNR, LODDS, and NLN were all independent prognostic predictors for CSS and OS in multivariate Cox models. Comparatively, LODDS demonstrated higher linear trend χ2 score, LR test score, C-index and integrated area under the curve (iAUC) value, and lower AIC in CSS compared to the other three systems. Moreover, for patients without regional lymph node metastasis, NLN showed higher C-index and lower AIC.ConclusionsLODDS showed better predictive performance than N, LNR, and NLN among patients with node-positive patients while NLN performed better in node-negative patients. A combination of LODDS and NLN has the potential to provide more prognostic information than the current AJCC TNM classification.
Keywords:Esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma  Lymph node  Log odds of positive lymph node  Prognosis
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号