Prognostic value of different lymph node staging methods for node-positive cardia gastric cancer: A register-based retrospective cohort study

8Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To investigate the prognostic efficacy of lymph node ratio (LNR) and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) in node-positive cardia gastric adenocarcinoma (CGA). Design A registry-based retrospective cohort study. Setting Patients diagnosed with node-positive CGA in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2010 to 2015. Participants A total of 1038 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (7:3) to the training set (n=723) or validating set (n=315). Primary outcome measure Cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results The baseline characteristics of the training and validation sets were similar. Based on the optimal cut-off values, LNR was classified into low (<0.09), medium (0.09∼0.33) and high (>0.33) groups; LODDS was also classified into low ( -0.65) groups. CSS was significantly different across LNR and LODDS subgroups. The Harrell concordance index of the N stage was lower than that of the LNR or LODDS. The Akaike information criterion of the N stage was higher than that of the LNR or LODDS. Independent predictors included race, T stage, M stage and LNR (or LODDS), and they were incorporated into nomograms for 1-year, 2-year and 5-year CSS prediction. Calibration plots showed satisfactory results for internal and external validity of the nomogram. Conclusions LNR and LODDS staging methods have better prognostic efficacy than the traditional N staging method in CGA with node metastasis. Moreover, the two values are promising substitutes for N staging in nomogram development when other independent prognostic factors are incorporated.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, X. Q., Bao, M., & Zhang, C. (2021). Prognostic value of different lymph node staging methods for node-positive cardia gastric cancer: A register-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050378

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free