Annals of Surgical Oncology Sign the Guestbook
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adachi, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kitano, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adachi, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kitano, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Prognostic factors

Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol 7, Issue 7 503-507, Copyright © 2000 by Society of Surgical Oncology

ARTICLES

Most important lymph node information in gastric cancer: multivariate prognostic study

Y. Adachi, N. Shiraishi, T. Suematsu, A. Shiromizu, K. Yamaguchi and S. Kitano
First Department of Surgery, Oita Medical University, Japan.

BACKGROUND: In gastric cancer, the level and number of lymph node metastases is useful for predicting survival, and there are several staging systems for lymph node metastasis. The aim of this study was to compare the several lymph node classifications and to clarify the most important lymph node information associated with prognosis using multivariate analysis. METHODS: A total of 106 patients with histologically node-positive gastric cancer treated by radical gastrectomy and extended lymph node dissection (D2, D3) were studied. The level of lymph node metastasis was categorized simply as Level I nodes (perigastric, No.1-6), Level II nodes (intermediate, No.7-9), and Level III nodes (distant, No.10-16), irrespective of the tumor location. The Level II nodes included lymph nodes along the left gastric artery, common hepatic artery, and celiac trunk. RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival rate was 51%. Univariate analysis showed that 5-year survival rate was significantly influenced by the level of positive nodes (P < .01), total number of positive nodes (P < .01), number of positive Level I nodes (P < .01), and number of positive Level II nodes (P < .01), in addition to the tumor location (P < .05), tumor size (P < .05), gross type (P < .01), and depth of wall invasion (P < .01). Of these, independent prognostic factors associated with 5-year survival rate were the number of positive Level II nodes (0-1 vs. > or =2) (62% vs. 19%, P < .01) and the depth of wall invasion (within vs. beyond muscularis) (79% vs. 43%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Among several staging systems for lymph node metastases, the number of positive Level II nodes provided the most powerful prognostic information in patients with node-positive gastric cancer. When there were two or more metastases in the Level II nodes, prognosis was poor even after D2 or D3 gastrectomy.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
M. L. V. Costa, K. de Cassia Braga Ribeiro, M. A. C. Machado, A. C. L. V. Costa, and A. L. Montagnini
Prognostic Score in Gastric Cancer: The Importance of a Conjoint Analysis of Clinical, Pathologic, and Therapeutic Factors
Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2006; 13(6): 843 - 850.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
B.J. Dicken, L.D. Saunders, G.S. Jhangri, C. de Gara, C. Cass, S. Andrews, and S.M. Hamilton
Gastric Cancer: Establishing Predictors of Biologic Behavior with Use of Population-Based Data
Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 11(6): 629 - 635.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.