Evaluation of the prognostic value of negative to positive lymph node ratio in gastric cancer: results from multi-institutional cohorts from western and eastern datasets - Cohort study

Xinyu Wang,Pengliang Wang,Wei Wang,Zhe Sun,Zhenning Wang,Rupeng Zhang,Huimian Xu,Zhiwei Zhou,Han Liang,Jingyu Deng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000000775
2023-01-01
Abstract:Introduction:Lymph node (LN) stage is important for prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer (GC) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the ratio of negative to positive LNs (Rnp) in GC. Methods:The authors evaluated the clinical significance of the Rnp stage in 7660 GC patients from three high-volume institutions in China. Meanwhile, the authors verified the value of the Rnp stage in 11 234 GC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Results:The patients were stratified into different subgroups based on the N stage of the eighth edition of the TNM staging system, the ratio of positive to detected LNs (Rpd) and Rnp. The survival analysis showed clear differences between the three LN stages in both the China and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohorts. In univariate and multivariate analyses, the Rnp stage provided smaller Akaike information criterion or Bayesian information criterion values and a larger likelihood ratio & chi;(2) than the N or Rpd stages in both two cohorts. For patients with inadequate examined LNs (<16), the Rnp stage showed better prognostic evaluation performance than the other two stages. In addition, the 5-year disease-specific survival of GC patients showed a slight variation with increasing LNs in the same subgroup classified by the Rnp or Rpd stages compared to the N stage. Conclusions:Along with the higher prognostic value, the Rnp stage has excellent universality with GC patients compared to the N or Rpd stages. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to predict the prognosis and provide more precise treatment for GC patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?