Research Papers:
Outcomes of surgery for gastric cancer with distant metastases: a retrospective study from the SEER database
Metrics: PDF 1735 views | HTML 2326 views | ?
Abstract
Jiaqi Chen1,*, Yiyao Kong1,*, Shanshan Weng1, Caixia Dong1, Lizhen Zhu1, Ziru Yang1, Jing Zhong3 and Ying Yuan1,2
1 Department of Medical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
2 Cancer Institute (Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, Chinese National Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Province, China), The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
3 Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
* These authors are co-first authors and contributed equally to this work
Correspondence to:
Ying Yuan, email:
Keywords: gastric cancer with distant metastases, surgery, outcomes
Received: July 06, 2016 Accepted: December 05, 2016 Published: December 19, 2016
Abstract
Background: The role of surgical therapy in gastric cancer patients with distant metastases remains controversial. This retrospective analysis was performed to identify whether gastric cancer patients with distant metastases might benefit from surgery.
Patients and methods: A total of 5185 patients from the SEER database who were initially diagnosed with histologically confirmed gastric cancer with distant metastases from 2004 to 2009 were included. Patients were divided into the following three groups: patients who underwent resection of both the primary tumor and distant metastatic tumors (‘PMTR’ group), patients who only underwent resection of the primary tumor (‘PTR’ group) and patients who did not undergo any surgery (‘No surgery’ group). We employed the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate the survival time of the different groups.
Results: A total of 5185 patients had a median survival time (MST) of 9.0 months. The improvement in survival of the ‘PMTR’ and ‘PTR’ groups was significantly different compared with that of the ‘No surgery’ group (MST, 12.0 vs 12.0 vs 9.0 months, respectively, P<0.001; 1-year survival rate, 49.6% vs 49.1% vs 30.1%, respectively, P<0.001; 3-year survival rate, 12.5% vs 15.1% vs 5.8%, respectively, P<0.001), whereas no significant difference was found between the ‘PMTR’ group and ‘PTR’ group (P=0.642). Multivariate Cox proportional analysis showed that surgery was an independent prognostic factor (‘PMTR’, hazard ratio (HR) =0.648, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.574-0.733, P<0.001; ‘PTR’, HR=0.631, 95% CI 0.583-0.684, P<0.001).
Conclusions: This retrospective analysis demonstrated that combined PTR and metastasectomy or PTR alone were independent prognostic factors for survival improvement in gastric cancer patients with distant metastases. Because no statistically significant difference in survival was observed between the ‘PMTR’ group and ‘PTR’ group, PTR, which is a more minor surgery, might be more appropriate than PMTR in clinical practice for gastric cancer patients with distant metastases.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 14027