Indications for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with AJCC stage IIa T3N0M0 and T1N2M0 gastric cancer-an east and west multicenter study

Prognostic factors and the necessity of chemotherapy for stage II gastric cancer: a model based on multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to construct a prognostic model for prognosis prediction and assess the response to adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) of stage II gastric cancer (GC) patients on high and low survival risk stratifications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 547 stage II gastric cancer patients who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy from January 2009 to May 2017 in Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University (SAH-SYSU), the Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (FJUUH), and the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC).The propensity score matching (PSM) of all variables was performed to balance selective bias between ACT and surgery alone (SA) groups. Kaplan-Meier survival and multivariate Cox regression analyses were carried out to identify independent prognostic factors. Independent factors selected by the Cox regression were integrated into the nomogram. The nomogram points stratified patients into high-risk and low-risk groups by the optimal cut-off value.

RESULTS

278 patients were selected after PSM. Age, tumor site, T stage and lymph-nodes-examined (LNE) selected by Cox regression as independent prognostic factors were integrated into the nomogram. The nomogram performed well with a C-index of 0.76 and with C-indexes of 0.73 in and 0.71 in two validate cohorts. AUCs of the 3 year and 5 year ROC curves were 0.81 and 0.78. High- and low-risk groups stratified by the cut-off value demonstrated different responses to ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram performed well in prognosis prediction. Patients in high- and low-risk groups demonstrated different responses to ACT, and high-risk patients might need ACT.

Prognostic Factors and the Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pathological Node-Negative T3 Gastric Cancer

The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in pathological T3N0M0 (pT3N0M0) gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic factors of patients with pT3N0M0 GC and to clarify which ones could benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. A total of 137 patients with pT3N0M0 GC were recruited between 1994 and 2020. Clinicopathological factors and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were retrospectively collected. Prognostic factors of disease-free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses. The chemotherapy group was younger (p = 0.012), had had more lymph nodes retrieved (p = 0.042) and had higher percentages of vascular invasion (p = 0.021) or perineural invasion (p = 0.030) than the non-chemotherapy group. There were no significant differences in DFS (p = 0.222) and CSS (p = 0.126) between patients treated with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Stump cancer, tumor size and perineural invasion were associated with higher rates of recurrence. Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio, 4.55; confidence interval, 1.59-12.99; p = 0.005) and CSS (hazard ratio, 3.97; confidence interval, 1.38-11.43; p = 0.011). Tumor size independently influenced survival outcomes in pT3N0M0 patients who underwent radical surgery with and without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Indications for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage II Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy-A Chinese Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for patients with stage II gastric cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to explore the indications for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II gastric cancer by constructing an individual prediction model.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this Chinese multicenter study, a total of 1012 patients with stage II gastric cancer after D2 radical gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were randomly assigned to a training cohort (n = 674) or a validation cohort (n = 338). A nomogram was constructed according to the training cohort. Concordance index (C-index), the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were applied to evaluate the performance of the nomogram. ROC curves and stratified survival were used to determine the patients' cutoff score for a benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. An additional 338 patients were used as a validation cohort to validate the feasibility of using this nomogram to guide individualized therapy for patients with stage II gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Univariate and multivariate analyses illustrated that age, sex, tumor location, size, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), hemoglobin (HB), and T stage were independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and they were used to establish a nomogram. The cutoff value was determined by ROC curve analysis, and patients were divided into a high-risk group (< 239 points) and a low-risk group (≥ 239 points). There was no significant difference in the OS of low-risk patients in either the training cohort or the validation cohort. However, the OS of high-risk patients in the AC group was better than that of patients in the surgery-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

This prediction model can be applied to guide treatment of patients with stage II gastric cancer. High-risk patients (< 239 points) are likely to benefit from AC after D2 radical gastrectomy.

Noncoding RNAs and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors globally. About 20-30% of patients with gastric cancer show peritoneal implantation metastasis at the first diagnosis. Peritoneal metastasis is responsible for 70% of deaths of patients with advanced gastric cancer. Although there are many ways to treat advanced gastric cancer, the prognosis of patients with recurrence is unsatisfactory. An auxiliary treatment with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), is an internationally recognized recommended treatment for advanced gastric cancer. A series of clinical trials have shown that HIPEC significantly improves the overall survival of patients with cancer. Compared with the cytoreductive surgery (CRS) alone, HIPEC combined with CRS markedly reduced the rate of peritoneal metastasis in patients with ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer. It has been demonstrated that HIPEC alters transcription of many genes by affecting non-coding RNAs, which may contribute to the suppressive effect of HIPEC on the synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins in cancer cells. This paper reviews the recent advances in understanding the role of non-coding RNAs in tumor invasion and metastasis of advanced gastric cancer. We also consider changes in noncoding RNA levels and other molecules in advanced gastric cancer cases treated with HIPEC. We hope that our review will provide a reference for future research on molecular epidemiology and etiology of advanced gastric cancer and promote precise treatment of this malignancy using HIPEC.

Survival analysis of stage II gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy: a Chinese people-based research

Objective

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is still controversial for stage II gastric cancer patients. This study aims to identify prognostic factors to guide individualized treatment for stage II gastric cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 1121 stage II gastric cancer patients who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy from 2007 to 2017 in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, FuJian Medical School Affiliated Union Hospital and Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was used to ensure that the baseline data were balanced between the adjuvant chemotherapy group and surgery-only group. Kaplan–Meier survival and multivariate Cox regression analyses were carried out to identify independent prognostic factors.

Results

In univariate analysis, after propensity score matching, age, tumor location, tumor size, CEA, T stage and N stage were associated with overall survival (OS). Multivariate analysis illustrated that age ≥ 60 years old, linitis plastica and T4 were independent risk factors for OS, but lower location and adjuvant chemotherapy were protective factors.

Conclusion

Stage II gastric cancer patients with adverse prognostic factors (age ≥ 60, linitis plastica and T4) have poor prognosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be more beneficial for these patients.

Improving treatment decisions using personalized risk assessment from the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool

Immunosuppression in IgA nephropathy (IgAN) should be reserved for patients at high-risk of disease progression, which KDIGO guidelines determine based solely on proteinuria 1g or more/day. To investigate if treatment decisions can be more accurately accomplished using individualized risk from the International IgAN Prediction Tool, we simulated allocation of a hypothetical immunosuppression therapy in an international cohort of adults with IgAN. Two decision rules for treatment were applied based on proteinuria of 1g or more/day or predicted risk from the Prediction Tool above a threshold probability. An appropriate decision was defined as immunosuppression allocated to patients experiencing the primary outcome (50% decline in eGFR or ESKD) and withheld otherwise. The net benefit and net reduction in treatment are the proportion of patients appropriately allocated to receive or withhold immunosuppression, adjusted for the harm from inappropriate decisions, calculated for all threshold probabilities from 0-100%. Of 3299 patients followed for 5.1 years, 522 (15.8%) experienced the primary outcome. Treatment allocation based solely on proteinuria of 1g or more/day had a negative net benefit (was harmful) because immunosuppression was increasingly allocated to patients without progressive disease. Compared to using proteinuria, treatment allocation using the Prediction Tool had a larger net benefit up to 23.4% (95% confidence interval 21.5-25.2%) and a larger net reduction in treatment up to 35.1% (32.3-37.8%). Thus, allocation of immunosuppression to high-risk patients with IgAN can be substantially improved using the Prediction Tool compared to using proteinuria.