Oncotarget

Research Papers:

A prospective appraisal of preoperative body mass index in D2-resected patients with non-metastatic gastric carcinoma and Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: results from a large-scale cohort

PDF |  HTML  |  How to cite  |  Order a Reprint

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:68165-68179. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19251

Metrics: HTML 999 views  |   ?  

Lei Huang, Zhi-Jian Wei, Tuan-Jie Li, Yu-Ming Jiang and A-Man Xu _

Abstract

Lei Huang1, Zhi-Jian Wei1, Tuan-Jie Li2, Yu-Ming Jiang2 and A-Man Xu1,3

1Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China

2Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

3Department of General Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China

Correspondence to:

A-Man Xu, email: amanxu@163.com

Lei Huang, email: huangleizhenting@126.com

Keywords: gastric cancer, adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction, body mass index, cancer-specific survival, prospective cohort study

Received: March 13, 2017    Accepted: June 16, 2017    Published: July 12, 2017

ABSTRACT

Objective: To prospectively investigate associations of presurgical body mass index (BMI) with clinicopathological factors and its prognostic significance in radically D2-resected patients with non-metastasized gastric cancer (GC) and Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG).

Methods: A large prospective cohort consisting of radically-resected GC and AEG patients was analyzed. Follow-up was successful in 671 out of 700 patients, who were categorized into underweight (BMI<18.5), normal-weight (BMI=18.5-22.9), overweight (BMI=23-24.9), and obese (BMI≥25) groups according to Asian standards. BMI-associated factors were explored using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment. Cancer-specific survival analyses were conducted applying both univariable and multivariable Cox regression methods.

Results: Pre-operation, higher hemoglobin levels and smaller anemia proportions were observed in larger BMI groups. Higher BMI tended to be associated with higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLRs). Patients with higher BMI had smaller tumors and more often stage I tumors, but longer surgical time and postsurgical stay. In multivariable analyses, higher hemoglobin levels, upper tumor location, poorer differentiation, and higher NLR were significantly associated with higher BMI. Overall, survival analyses revealed no significant role of BMI. However, in further stratifications after adjustment, compared to patients with normal BMI, obese patients had better survival in women, but worse in those with AEG; underweight was associated with reduced mortality risk in tumors differentiated well to moderately; overweight patients had increased death hazard when having thrombocytopenia.

Conclusion: Overall, preoperative BMI had limited prognostic significance in operated GC patients. However, under specific conditions (e.g., female, AEG, good differentiation, and thrombocytopenia), BMI might indicate postoperative survival.


A prospective appraisal of preoperative body mass index in D2-resected patients with non-metastatic gastric carcinoma and Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: results from a large-scale cohort | Huang | Oncotarget

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common and lethal malignancies worldwide [1], especially in China [2]. Siewert type-II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG), generally deemed as an independent cancer type, is nowadays becoming more prevalent in Asia [3]. Currently, D2 gastrectomy has been widely accepted as the standard surgical method in Asia, potentially benefiting survival together with advancement in adjuvant therapies [4].

Several clinicopathological factors have been revealed to be associated with GC and AEG prognosis besides patients’ demographic characteristics (e.g., age) [5, 6]. More advanced tumor stage [7], larger lymph node ratio [8], and poorer differentiation [9] might negatively predict survival. Proximal cancers are associated with a worse prognosis compared to distal ones [3, 10]. Tumor size is predictive of lymph node metastasis [11] and survival [12]. Increased preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio is positively associated with tumor progression and negatively with prognosis [13-16]. Hemoglobin level might impact treatment response rate and survival [17, 18]. Platelet count is associated with treatment response, but controversially with survival [16, 19].

With improvement of living standard, China is witnessing growing proportions of obese populations, associated with increasing rates of various chronic diseases and cancers including GC and AEG [20-22]. It is further indicated that BMI is associated with tumor location and differentiation [21-24]. Among the obese Chinese patients, fat usually gathers in abdomen, potentially increasing the difficulty of conducting abdominal surgery [25, 26]. Overweight and obesity might be associated with increased surgical time and positive-harvested lymph node ratio (LNR) which is negatively associated with survival [27]. However, some studies showed obesity did not significantly impact short-term perioperative outcomes [28-30]. Low BMI is associated with postoperative anemia in the long term [31]. Based on retrospective evidence, the association between BMI and postsurgical survival remains highly debatable [29, 32-34]. A small prospective study on mere GC patients only investigated the perioperative outcomes [35]. To the best of our knowledge, there are few prospective reports focusing on BMI in resected GC and AEG patients with a long-term follow-up, especially in the Chinese population. This study for the first time thoroughly investigated BMI-associated clinicopathological factors and its prognostic impact overall and in various subgroups in a large prospective Chinese cohort of GC and type-II/III AEG patients undergoing radical D2-gastrectomy.

RESULTS

Cohort characteristics

The overall and BMI group-specific patients’ clinicopathological data are shown in Table 1. Overall, a total of 671 resected patients were included in final analysis according to the eligibility criteria. The four BMI groups were comparable in gender, age, preoperative platelet, NLR, CEA and CA19-9, presurgical hospital stay, resection and digestive reconstruction types, and conduction of cholecystectomy and splenectomy. However, higher-BMI groups had higher levels of pretreatment hemoglobin (P=0.02) and smaller proportions of anemia (P=0.02). According to postoperative pathology, no significant differences were observed regarding tumor location, curvature, Borrman type in advanced cancers, pathological type, differentiation, early GC proportion, pN stage, neuro-invasion or thrombosis. However, significantly smaller tumors (P=0.01) and smaller proportions of large (>5 cm) tumors (P=0.02) were present in higher-BMI groups, where however trends towards smaller proportions of pT4a tumors and greater proportion of pT2 tumors were observed (P=0.06). Patients with higher BMI had also greater proportions of pTNM stage I tumors and overall smaller proportions of stage III cancers (P=0.03). Higher BMI was significantly associated with longer surgical time (P=0.00) and postoperative hospital stay (P=0.04), but the metastatic-harvested lymph node ratios were similar among the four groups.

Table 1: Clinicopathological data of the analyzed resected gastric cancer patients

Parameter

Value

Overall

BMI group

χ2/F

P

 

 

 

<18.5 kg/m2

18.5-23 kg/m2

23-25 kg/m2

≥25 kg/m2

 

 

n

 

671

84

357

118

112

 

 

Gender

Male

515 (76.8)

62 (73.8)

281 (78.7)

85 (72.0)

87 (77.7)

0.01

0.918

Age (y)

 

62 ± 10

64 ± 12

62 ± 10

63 ± 9

63 ± 9

1.64

0.179

Age group

<60 ys

228 (34.0)

21 (25.0)

129 (36.1)

40 (33.9)

38 (33.9)

0.99

0.321

 

60-69 ys

281 (41.9)

37 (44.0)

145 (40.6)

50 (42.4)

49 (43.8)

 

 

 

≥70 ys

162 (24.1)

26 (31.0

83 (23.3)

28 (23.7)

25 (22.3)

 

 

Weight (kg)

 

59 ± 9

48 ± 5

56 ± 6

63 ± 6

72 ± 8

300.25

0.000

Height (cm)

 

164 ± 7

167 ± 7

164 ± 7

163 ± 8

162 ± 8

7.22

0.000

BMI (kg/m2)

 

22.0 ± 3.2

17.4 ± 9.5

20.8 ± 1.2

24.0 ± 0.5

27.3 ± 2.1

-

-

BMI group

<18.5 kg/m2

84 (12.5)

84 (100.0)

-

-

-

-

-

 

18.5-22.9 kg/m2

357 (53.2)

-

357 (100.0)

-

-

 

 

 

23-24.9 kg/m2

118 (17.6)

-

-

118 (100.0)

-

 

 

 

≥25 kg/m2

112 (16.7)

-

-

-

112 (100.0)

 

 

Presurgical hemoglobin (g/L)

 

116 ± 27

112 ± 25

114 ± 27

120 ± 26

121 ± 27

3.25

0.021

Presurgical anemia

Yes

258 (41.9)

32 (44.4)

152 (46.2)

40 (35.4)

34 (33.3)

5.866

0.016

Presurgical neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio

2.59 ± 2.72

2.30 ± 0.95

2.57 ± 1.82

2.32 ± 1.48

3.17 ± 5.54

2.20

0.087

Presurgical platelet (×109/L)

 

199 ± 79

200 ± 92

204 ± 82

191 ± 72

192 ± 62

1.11

0.344

Presurgical thrombocytopenia

Yes

126 (20.5)

21 (29.2)

60 (18.2)

25 (22.1)

20 (19.8)

0.40

0.525

Presurgical CEA (μg/L)

 

7.9 ± 20.0

8.0 ± 13.2

9.0 ± 22.3

4.5 ± 6.1

7.9 ± 25.0

0.88

0.450

Presurgical CA19-9 (kU/L)

 

44 ± 127

81 ± 217

36 ± 93

54 ± 160

30 ± 92

1.97

0.118

Presurgical hospital stay (d)

 

6 ± 4

7 ± 5

6 ± 4

6 ± 4

6 ± 4

0.44

0.722

Surgery type

Open

650 (96.9)

82 (97.6)

350 (98.0)

110 (93.2)

108 (96.4)

2.10

0.147

Resection type

Distal gastrectomy

153 (22.8)

21 (25.0)

80 (22.4)

27 (22.9)

25 (22.3)

0.19

0.909

 

Total gastrectomy

479 (71.4)

60 (71.4)

253 (70.9)

87 (73.7)

79 (70.5)

 

 

 

Proximal gastrectomy

39 (5.8)

3 (3.6)

24 (6.7)

4 (3.4)

8 (7.1)

 

 

Reconstruction type

Roux-en-Y

574 (85.5)

70 (83.3)

306 (85.7)

105 (89.0)

93 (83.0)

2.12

5.49

 

Bilroth-I

51 (7.6)

7 (8.3)

27 (7.6)

7 (5.9)

10 (8.9)

 

 

 

Bilroth-II

28 (4.2)

6 (7.2)

14 (3.9)

4 (3.4)

4 (3.6)

 

 

 

Esophagogastrostomy

18 (2.7)

1 (1.2)

10 (2.8)

2 (1.7)

5 (4.5)

 

 

Cholecystectomy

Yes

42 (6.3)

3 (3.6)

24 (6.7)

7 (5.9)

8 (7.1)

0.46

0.499

Splenectomy

Yes

17 (2.5)

3 (3.6)

11 (3.1)

2 (1.7)

1 (0.9)

2.25

0.134

Tumor location in stomach

EGJ

310 (46.2)

29 (34.5)

166 (46.5)

64 (54.2)

51 (45.5)

2.62

0.105

 

Cardia & fundus

39 (5.8)

5 (6.0)

21 (5.9)

5 (4.2)

8 (7.1)

 

 

 

Fundus

21 (3.1)

2 (2.4)

16 (4.5)

0 (0.0)

3 (2.7)

 

 

 

Fundus & body

9 (1.3)

3 (3.6)

4 (1.1)

1 (0.9)

1 (0.9)

 

 

 

Body

71 (10.6)

13 (15.5)

28 (7.8)

12 (10.2)

18 (16.1)

 

 

 

Body & antrum

15 (2.2)

1 (1.2)

11 (3.1)

3 (2.5)

0 (0.0)

 

 

 

Antrum & pylorus

176 (26.2)

26 (31.0)

92 (25.8)

30 (25.4)

28 (25.0)

 

 

 

Full stomach

30 (4.5)

5 (6.0)

19 (5.3)

3 (2.5)

3 (2.7)

 

 

Curvature

Small

633 (94.3)

77 (91.7)

337 (94.4)

111 (94.1)

108 (96.4)

1.48

0.223

Borrmann type

I

24 (4.2)

3 (4.2)

16 (5.2)

0 (0.0)

5 (5.4)

1.53

0.216

 

II

360 (63.3)

41 (57.8)

189 (61.0)

69 (72.6)

61 (65.6)

 

 

 

III

160 (28.1)

22 (31.0)

92 (29.7)

23 (24.2)

23 (24.7)

 

 

 

IV

25 (4.4)

5 (7.0)

13 (4.2)

3 (3.2)

4 (4.3)

 

 

Pathological type

Adenocarcinoma

607 (91.3)

76 (90.5)

325 (91.8)

107 (91.5)

99 (90.0)

0.13

0.988

 

Signetring cell carcinoma

11 (1.7)

2 (2.4)

6 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

3 (2.7)

 

 

 

Squamous cell carcinoma

5 (0.8)

1 (1.2)

2 (0.6)

1 (0.9)

1 (0.9)

 

 

 

Mucinous cell carcinoma

42 (6.3)

5 (6.0)

21 (5.9)

9 (7.7)

7 (6.4)

 

 

Tumor length (cm)

 

5.1 ± 2.9

5.5 ± 3.1

5.3 ± 3.0

4.5 ± 2.2

4.7 ± 2.8

3.95

0.008

Tumor length >5 cm

Yes

253 (38.2)

37 (44.6)

144 (40.9)

36 (31.0)

36 (32.1)

5.66

0.017

Tumor stage

Early

92 (14.0)

11 (13.1)

45 (12.6)

20 (17.0)

16 (14.3)

0.49

0.486

pT

1

92 (14.0)

11 (13.4)

45 (12.8)

20 (17.4)

16 (14.8)

3.69

0.055

 

2

59 (9.0)

5 (6.1)

26 (7.4)

13 (11.3)

15 (13.9)

 

 

 

3

34 (5.2)

7 (8.5)

15 (4.3)

2 (1.7)

10 (9.3)

 

 

 

4a

412 (62.7)

54 (65.9)

231 (65.6)

66 (57.4)

61 (56.5)

 

 

 

4b

60 (9.1)

5 (6.1)

35 (9.9)

14 (12.2)

6 (5.6)

 

 

pN

0

267 (40.3)

27 (32.9)

140 (40.0)

50 (43.5)

50 (45.1)

2.20

0.138

 

1

147 (22.2)

21 (25.6)

84 (23.7)

23 (20.0)

19 (17.1)

 

 

 

2

149 (22.5)

18 (22.0)

77 (21.8)

25 (21.7)

29 (26.1)

 

 

 

3a

87 (13.2)

13 (15.9)

46 (13.0)

16 (13.9)

12 (10.8)

 

 

 

3b

12 (1.8)

3 (3.7)

7 (2.0)

1 (0.9)

1 (0.9)

 

 

pTNM stage

IA

82 (13.0)

7 (8.6)

41 (12.2)

18 (16.5)

16 (15.1)

4.98

0.026

 

IB

42 (6.6)

4 (4.9)

18 (5.3)

10 (9.2)

10 (9.4)

 

 

 

IIA

31 (4.9)

7 (8.6)

14 (4.2)

5 (4.6)

5 (4.7)

 

 

 

IIB

138 (21.8)

17 (21.0)

77 (22.9)

21 (19.3)

23 (21.7)

 

 

 

IIIA

107 (16.9)

13 (16.1)

63 (18.7)

15 (13.8)

16 (15.1)

 

 

 

IIIB

113 (17.9)

13 (16.1)

58 (17.2)

19 (17.4)

23 (21.7)

 

 

 

IIIC

120 (19.0)

20 (24.7)

66 (19.6)

21 (19.3)

13 (12.2)

 

 

Differentiation grade

Well

20 (3.3)

1 (1.3)

10 (3.1)

2 (1.9)

7 (6.9)

0.35

0.552

 

Well-moderate

10 (1.6)

3 (4.0)

4 (1.2)

3 (2.9)

0 (0.0)

 

 

 

Moderate

194 (31.9)

21 (28.0)

115 (35.2)

33 (31.4)

25 (24.8)

 

 

 

Moderate-poor

153 (25.2)

20 (26.7)

80 (24.5)

33 (31.4)

20 (19.8)

 

 

 

Poor

217 (35.7)

29 (38.7)

110 (33.6)

33 (31.4)

45 (44.6)

 

 

 

Undifferentiated

14 (2.3)

1 (1.3)

8 (2.5)

1 (1.0)

4 (4.0)

 

 

Neuro-invasion

Yes

13 (1.9)

2 (2.4)

7 (2.0)

2 (1.7)

2 (1.8)

0.10

0.758

Tumor thrombosis

Yes

49 (7.3)

5 (6.0)

31 (8.7)

8 (6.8)

5 (4.5)

0.91

0.339

Surgical duration (min)

 

175 ± 55

164 ± 48

168 ± 49

184 ± 54

197 ± 69

9.25

0.000

Positive-harvested lymph node ratio

0.25 ± 0.31

0.27 ± 0.29

0.25 ± 0.32

0.25 ± 0.30

0.25 ± 0.31

0.14

0.938

Postsurgical hospital stay (d)

 

12 ± 7

12 ± 5

12 ± 7

12 ± 4

14 ± 8

2.88

0.036

Follow-up1 (mo)

 

71 (69-74)

70 (64-74)

71 (67-74)

71 (70-75)

74 (70-76)

-

-

Enumeration data are shown as n (percentage [%]), and measurement data as mean ± standard deviation.

1Calculated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method and shown as median (interquartile).

BMI, body mass index; CEA, carcino-embryonic antigen; CA19-9, cancer antigen 19-9; EGJ, esophagogastric junction.

Association of BMI with clinicopathological parameters

The association of BMI with preoperative demographical and clinical characteristics using multivariable logistic regression are shown in Table 2. Greater BMI was significantly associated with higher presurgical hemoglobin levels (P=0.02), more proximal tumor locations (P=0.01), poorer differentiation grades (P=0.02), and higher NLR (P=0.02). However, gender, age, platelet count, tumor curvature, pathology, length, pT stage, metastatic-harvested lymph node ratio, neuro-invasion, and tumor thrombosis were not significantly associated with preoperative BMI.

Table 2: Association of body mass index with presurgical clinicopathological factors in resected gastric cancer patients using multivariable logistic regression

Parameter

Odds ratio

95% confidence
interval

Wald χ2

P

Gender

1.02

0.68-1.53

0.01

0.926

Age

1.02

1.00-1.03

2.56

0.110

Presurgical hemoglobin

1.01

1.00-1.02

5.26

0.022

Presurgical platelet

1.00

1.00-1.00

0.02

0.899

Tumor location

0.91

0.86-0.97

7.57

0.006

Curvature

0.72

0.34-1.54

0.70

0.401

Pathology

0.75

0.41-1.37

0.90

0.343

Tumor length

0.79

0.53-1.17

1.39

0.239

pT

0.88

0.75-1.03

2.43

0.119

Positive-harvested lymph node ratio

1.38

0.79-2.41

1.25

0.264

Differentiation grade

1.23

1.03-1.45

5.37

0.021

Neuro-invasion

0.84

0.26-2.70

0.08

0.775

Tumor thrombosis

0.89

0.46-1.73

0.11

0.738

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio

1.08

1.01-1.16

5.30

0.021

Odds ratios (ORs) indicating associations of sequential body mass index groups (<18.5 kg/m2, 18.5-23 kg/m2, 23-25 kg/m2, and ≥25 kg/m2) with clinicopathological characteristics for resected gastric cancer patients are shown as point estimate (95% confidence interval). ORs were calculated using the multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for the factors listed in the left-most column.

CSS-associated factors

The associations of CSS with clinicopathological factors are shown in Table 3. The median follow-up was 71 (interquartile, 69-74) months. Using univariable Cox regression analysis, older ages (P=0.00), higher NLRs (P=0.00), resection (P=0.02) and reconstruction types (P=0.03), splenectomy (P=0.03), larger tumor size (P=0.00), more advanced pT stage (P=0.00), larger positive-harvested lymph node ratio (P=0.00), poorer differentiation grades (P=0.00), neuro-invasion (P=0.02), and tumor thrombosis (P=0.00) were significantly associated with poorer survivals. Applying multivariable Cox regression models, older age (P=0.00), tumor location (P=0.02), larger tumor size (P=0.02), higher pT stage (P=0.00), and larger metastatic-harvested lymph node ratio (P=0.00) were significant independent postoperative CSS-indicators. However, BMI did not show any prognostic significances overall either in univariable (P=0.28) or multivariable (P=0.30) analysis.

Table 3: Association of cancer-specific survival with clinicopathological factors in resected gastric cancer patients using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models

Parameter

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

 

Hazard ratio

95% confidence
interval

χ2

P

Hazard ratio

95% confidence
interval

χ2

P

Gender

0.94

0.73-1.21

0.24

0.623

1.07

0.80-1.44

0.19

0.661

Age

1.02

1.01-1.03

12.36

0.000

1.03

1.02-1.04

16.34

0.000

Body mass index

0.98

0.95-1.02

1.16

0.281

1.02

0.98-1.06

1.08

0.300

Presurgical hemoglobin

1.00

0.99-1.00

1.72

0.190

1.00

1.00-1.01

1.55

0.213

Presurgical platelet

1.00

1.00-1.00

1.30

2.55

1.00

1.00-1.00

0.22

0.641

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio

1.04

1.02-1.07

10.59

0.001

1.02

0.99-1.06

1.66

0.198

Surgery type

0.83

0.43-1.61

0.30

0.586

0.55

0.17-1.74

1.04

0.307

Resection type

1.26

1.03-1.54

5.26

0.022

1.36

0.98-1.89

3.30

0.069

Reconstruction type

0.81

0.67-0.98

4.78

0.029

1.09

0.87-1.37

0.52

0.473

Cholecystectomy

0.84

0.53-1.33

0.55

0.457

1.02

0.63-1.65

0.00

0.945

Splenectomy

1.85

1.06-3.22

4.72

0.030

1.31

0.71-2.44

0.73

0.392

Tumor position

0.99

0.96-1.03

0.09

0.769

1.07

1.01-1.13

5.70

0.017

Curvature

0.85

0.52-1.38

0.45

0.501

0.93

0.51-1.69

0.06

0.806

Pathological type

1.03

0.93-1.14

0.30

0.584

0.82

0.36-1.89

0.22

0.641

Tumor length

1.17

1.13-1.20

94.56

0.000

1.07

1.01-1.12

5.81

0.016

pT

1.65

1.47-1.85

69.95

0.000

1.39

1.20-1.61

18.49

0.000

Positive-harvested lymph node ratio

3.88

3.16-4.77

168.05

0.000

2.88

2.11-3.93

44.05

0.000

Differentiation grade

1.20

1.08-1.34

11.80

0.001

1.07

0.94-1.23

0.07

0.959

Neuro-invasion

2.01

1.10-3.67

5.16

0.023

1.12

0.56-2.25

0.10

0.750

Tumor thrombosis

1.94

1.39-2.72

14.85

0.000

1.11

0.73-1.68

0.22

0.640

Continuous data were applied where applicable.

Association of BMI with CSS in various subgroups

The association of BMI with postoperative CSS in different stratifications using adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazard regressions are shown in Table 4. With the normal BMI group of 18.5-23 kg/m2 as the standard, obesity significantly reduced death risk in female (hazard ratio [HR]=0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.19-0.97), but increased risk among patients with AEG (HR=1.53, 95% CI=1.01-2.39). Overweight significantly increased mortality risk in patients with presurgical thrombocytopenia (HR=3.03, 95% CI=1.12-8.17). Underweight significantly reduced death risk among people with well, well-moderately, and moderately differentiated tumors. All the other association findings were statistically insignificant.

Table 4: Association of body mass index with cancer-specific survival in resected gastric cancer patients using multivariable Cox regression

Parameter

Value

Body mass index (kg/m2), HR (95% CI)

 

 

<18.5 vs. 18.5-23

23-25 vs. 18.5-23

≥25 vs. 18.5-23

Comprehensive

 

0.85 (0.57-1.27)

1.11 (0.79-1.55)

1.13 (0.80-1.60)

Gender

Male

0.94 (0.61-1.45)

1.25 (0.85-1.82)

1.24 (0.86-1.21)

 

Female

0.49 (0.20-1.20)

0.74 (0.33-1.66)

0.38 (0.19-0.97)

Age group

<60 ys

0.88 (0.36-2.16)

0.93 (0.48-1.79)

0.81 (0.35-1.87)

 

60-69 ys

0.65 (0.34-1.23)

1.00 (0.56-1.79)

1.30 (0.78-2.14)

 

≥70 ys

0.91 (0.43-1.91)

0.84 (0.41-1.72)

1.01 (0.49-2.09)

Tumor position

Esophagogastric junction

0.82 (0.45-1.21)

1.11 (0.72-1.71)

1.53 (1.01-2.39)

 

Non-esophagogastric junction

0.91 (0.48-1.72)

0.85 (0.46-1.58)

0.63 (0.32-1.24)

Differentiation grade

Well, well-moderate & moderate

0.37 (0.15-0.89)

1.73 (0.93-3.20)

1.41 (0.72-2.76)

 

Moderate-poor, poor & undifferentiated

0.94 (0.60-1.47)

0.90 (0.61-1.34)

1.06 (0.71-1.59)

pTNM stage

I-II

0.79 (0.33-1.91)

0.79 (0.40-1.57)

0.83 (0.42-1.67)

 

III

0.78 (0.48-1.25)

1.14 (0.73-1.76)

1.31 (0.85-2.02)

Presurgical anemia

No

0.70 (0.38-1.29)

1.07 (0.66-1.73)

1.27 (0.78-2.08)

 

Yes

0.89 (0.48-1.65)

1.02 (0.60-1.72)

0.88 (0.49-1.58)

Presurgical thrombocytopenia

No

0.73 (0.46-1.16)

1.03 (0.70-1.52)

1.17 (0.80-1.72)

 

Yes

1.55 (0.46-5.25)

3.03 (1.12-8.17)

1.60 (0.43-5.47)

Hazard ratios (HRs) indicating association between body mass index and gastric cancer-specific survival are presented as point estimate (95% confidence interval) after adjustment for gender, age group, surgery type, gastrectomy type, digestive reconstruction type, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hepatectomy, tumor location, curvature, pathology, length, pT, pN, differentiation, neuro-invasion, thrombosis, anemia and thrombocytopenia, overall and in each stratification by clinicopathological parameters of the patients. HRs were calculated using the multiple Cox regression model with adjustment, and are statistically significant when shown in bold.

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

DISCUSSION

Nowadays with the continuous improvement in living standard, the proportions of overweight and obese people keep increasing dramatically throughout the world especially in the Asia-Pacific region, making it a major health problem [36]. Higher BMI could lead to many chronic diseases including hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia, and various malignancies like pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer and leukemia, where it might also be prognostically significant [22, 32, 36-40]. Meanwhile, under rising socioeconomical pressure, still a significant number of people are underweight. Abnormal weight is closely associated with GC genesis, and might as well impact prognosis [24, 41, 42]. Up till now, little prospective evidence has been reported concerning BMI in resected upper digestive malignancies. Especially, whether underweight, which usually indicates disease progression and advanced stage [43], is prognostically significant remains scarcely explored. This study prospectively investigated BMI in resected GC and type II/III AEG using a large Chinese cohort with long follow-up periods. Several interesting BMI-associated clinicopathological factors were revealed. Although overall, BMI did not play a significant prognostic role, it was associated with CSS in several subgroups.

In this study, larger preoperative BMI associated with higher hemoglobin levels, lower anemia proportions, larger NLR, more proximal tumor locations, poorer tumor differentiation and more advanced pTNM stage, but interestingly with smaller tumor size. BMI reflects overall nutrition and immunity statuses [44]. Overweight and obese populations are less likely anemic [45] which might be associated with the indicated better nutritional status, and the positive association between BMI and hemoglobin levels were stronger in men [46]. Anemia is a negative prognostic marker in GC [47, 48]. Obesity is associated with chronic low-grade inflammation and immunological disorders [38, 49, 50], which correlates with tumor progression. High NLR is a risk factor for GC, and positively associates with tumor size and stage [51]. It is also negatively prognostic in GC [14, 52, 53] and AEG [54, 55]. Notably, in this study tumor pTNM stage and size but not differentiation grade were differently distributed in the four BMI groups using χ2 test. However, when applying BMI as a continuous variable and using the multivariable logistic regression models, stage and size were not associated with BMI, but an association of tumor differentiation was observed. These findings however require further validation or clarification. More advanced tumor stage [7], larger lymph node ratio [8], larger tumor size [12], and poorer differentiation [9] might also negatively predict survival. A small-scale retrospective study also supported the positive association of BMI with tumor stage, but not with tumor location [56]. The higher BMI-associated poorer differentiation observed might be explained by the disrupted metabolic status of malignant cells, making them more aggressive in biological behavior. Findings in other cancer entities are controversial but interesting. In breast cancer, it was also found that obesity at the time of diagnosis was associated with more advanced tumor stages and poorly differentiated grade [57, 58], which was however not supported by other investigations [59]. Higher BMI was associated with non-organ-confined prostate cancers [60]. While in penile cancer, no association between BMI and cancer stage was observed [61]. In esophageal carcinoma, patients with high BMI tend to have lower stage at diagnosis [62]. AEG might be detected at an earlier stage than non-AEG due to early local obstructive symptoms, partly explaining the higher BMI. However, tumors located in gastric antrum/pylorus might be more insidious, and could grow to a relatively large mass causing obstruction, further leading to malnutrition. Notably, higher BMI is a well-established risk factor especially for proximal GC and AEG compared to distal GC [3, 23, 24, 42, 63], while the underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation. Type II/III AEG might associate with poorer survival compared to non-AEG GC, after adjustment of survival-associated covariates [3]. Our results further supported that age, NLR, resection and reconstruction types, splenectomy, tumor length, pT stage, positive-harvested lymph node ratio, differentiation, neuro-invasion and tumor thrombosis were associated with CSS, and that age, tumor position, size, pT stage, and lymph node ratio were independent prognostic markers. Taking all these into consideration, the prognostic significance of BMI in GC and AEG might be complicated and clinicopathological parameter-dependent.

Overall, neither univariable nor multivariable analysis revealed any significant association between BMI and CSS in this investigation. However, in further subgroup analyses, interestingly, overweight/obesity increased HR in patients with type II/III AEG and those with presurgical thrombocytopenia, but decreased risk in female. Underweight decreased mortality risk in well- to moderately-differentiated cancers. No age group-, pTNM stage-, and anemia-specific CSS differences were detected in relation to BMI. Previous retrospective evidence concerning the prognostic role of BMI in GC remains controvertial. Some supported that higher pretreatment BMI did not meaningfully predict postoperative survival [30, 32, 44, 56, 64-66], some indicated a positive association between BMI and postoperative survival [33, 34, 67], while others suggested a negative correlation [68]. The different findings could partly due to the fact that some other researches did not adjust confounding factors as thoroughly as we did, which could then hopefully reveal the true associations. Several studies consistently showed underweight was negatively prognosis-indicative [29, 43, 69]. Interestingly, obesity is only associated with increased risk of AEG but not non-cardia GC [23, 24, 42, 63], which is consistent with the subsite-specific findings here that obesity only increased the death risk in AEG. The observed obesity-associated increased risk of mortality could be possibly explained by the more strongly and earlier disrupted metabolic and immune status in the population. Effect of obesity on GC might be gender-specific: it is associated with GC in men, where it was associated with increased incidence of early and well- to moderately-differentiated GC, while in women it was associated with gastric dysplasia [41]. The observation that obesity seemed protective in female GC patients is noteworthy. The premenopausal female sex is a known protective factor against various malignancies, potentially due to the effect of the sex hormones. In obese females, the endocrinal and metabolic statuses are disorganized, which however might up-regulate the protective hormone levels or facilitate the underlying functions. These however need to be validated in further investigations. Platelets are associated with inflammation and tumor progression in GC [70, 71], and the combination with higher BMI might indicate greater tumor invasiveness. In less invasive tumors with good to moderate differentiation, underweight appears protective, potentially indicating the theory ‘starve-tumor-to-death’ works better in less aggressive cancers [72]. Besides, survival patterns in patients with tumors of more benign differentiation might be more in line with the normal population, where underweight could be beneficial to some extent. The underlying mechanisms through which BMI might prognostically significant are worth further clarification.

In this research, patients with higher BMI especially those obese had significantly longer surgical time and postoperative hospital stay, while the metastatic-harvested lymph node ratios were similar in the four BMI groups. Due to potentially different inclusion criteria and regions, researches revealed controversial association of overweight/obesity and surgical parameters including operation duration and lymph node ratio [28-30, 65, 73]. Overweight and obesity might be associated with more comorbidities [74], and potentially increase the complexity and difficulty of gastric surgery [32, 64, 68]. Both underweight and overweight increased postoperative complications [68, 75]. Notably, visceral obesity condition and body-shape index (BSI) might also well predict short-term post-gastrectomy outcomes [76, 77]. The impact of BMI on surgical outcomes might decrease with advancement in surgical skills and techniques, and perioperative care. Interestingly, in obese patients with GC, adequate preoperative exercise could reduce operative risk [78]. Although more nodes could be retrieved in obese patients [79], the lymph node ratio remained unchanged.

Since BMI was associated with various clinicopathological parameters, it would be important to keep it mind during perioperative management. For instance, for an overweight/obese patient, presurgical blood transfusion would be less necessary. Higher BMI would more often point to the proximal stomach which should be focused on, and a more poorly differentiation grade which would justify the necessity of standardized postoperative therapy and the more careful detection of potential occult metastasis. Further, BMI might also be helpful to guide immunotherapy considering its association with neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. When considering the prognostic value of BMI, it would be important to make the evaluation in a specific subgroup with specific characteristics (e.g., female, AEG, and good differentiation); otherwise, the predictive value in the overall patients would be limited.

The advantages of this investigation lie in its prospective design, large cohort size, long follow-up, use of CSS in survival analyses, detailed and thorough stratification analyses, and appropriate, rigorous and thorough methodology, especially the adjustment strategies. The limitations of this study are that it is a single-institution investigation, and that selection bias might exist with some other potential confounding factors like comorbidities not considered. Moreover, there could be other reasonable groupings of BMI. Notably, the postoperative BMI might be better prognosis-indicative. Besides, in Asia BMIs are generally lower than in the Western world. Specific molecular events were not investigated due to not being part of the original plan of this prospective investigation focusing on the clinical aspects of BMI.

Taken together, this large prospective evidence showed that higher BMI increased surgical time and hospital stay of GC and type II/III AEG patients, and that although overall, preoperative BMI had limited prognostic significance in operated patients, under specific conditions (e.g., female, AEG, good differentiation, and thrombocytopenia), BMI might indicate postoperative survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient cohort

Due to the very high prevalence, the number of patients with upper digestive malignancies resected yearly at Department of General Surgery in The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (FAHAMU) exceeds 1500, potentially ranking 1st worldwide. A total of 700 non-metastasized GC (n=381) and Siewert type-II/III AEG [3] (n=319) patients undergoing radical D2-gastrectomy between January 2009 and December 2010 in Department of General Surgery of FAHAMA were consecutively recruited. Patients ≥15 years, with pTNM stage I-III and pathologically/cytologically-confirmed tumors (imaging-diagnostically confirmed for AEG), with relatively good hepatic and renal functions (serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase <2.5 times of the upper limit of normal level[ULN], serum total bilirubin <1.5 times of the ULN, serum creatinine ≤1.5 times of the ULN, and international normalized ratio and activated partial thromboplastin time <1.5 times of the ULN) and ECOG scores of 0-2, without severe dysfunctions of important organs (e.g., serious uncontrolled cardiopulmonary and neurological dysfunction and hypertension, and active hepatitis B/C virus infection), endocrinal disorders (e.g., Cushing’s Syndrome and diabetes) or systemic unfits (e.g., cachexia, immunodeficiency diseases, and severe psychological disorders), undergoing R0-resectional surgery, and receiving ≥4 cycles of first-line capecitabine-/5-FU-based combination chemotherapy met the inclusion criteria for this prospective cohort. Exclusion criteria were: lymphomas, GIST, sarcomas, type-I AEG, previous cytotoxic/interventional therapies, major abdominal surgery and systemic therapeutics influencing BMI (e.g., glucocorticoid and insulin supplements), severe comorbidities, perioperative mortalities due to severe complications, missing records, and rejection of participation by patients. There were 689 eligible patients, and finally 671 with complete follow-up data were analyzed (Table 1). No patients reported receipt of preoperative peripheral blood stimulating regimens or blood product transfusion within 1 month before surgery. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of FAHAMU, and carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration [80] and Good Clinical Practice [81] guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Neoadjuvant treatment was not routinely administered in our department, and upfront R0-resection was conducted either openly or laparoscopically for non-metastatic patients. Intraoperative frozen section was routinely performed to ensure resection margins free of malignant residuals. All D2-resections were standard and performed by our experienced group members yearly conducting ≥50 gastrectomies and with surgical practice of ≥5 years. In our department, total gastrectomy was preferred over proximal gastrectomy for AEGs, due to the favorable perioperative outcomes and non-inferior survival [3], and D2 lymphadenectomy was routinely conducted. Roux-en-Y was the commonest anastomosis procedure. Cholecystectomy/splenectomy was performed in case of positive findings (e.g., cholecystitis and local invasion) during surgery. Afer R0 resection, all patients received 4-6 cycles of first-line adjuvant combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFOX) or a prodrug of 5-FU (capecitabine; CapeOX). Radiotherapy was not routinely recommended.

Clinicopathological parameters

Each patient’s body weight and height were measured and recorded upon hospitalization, and BMI was calculated as body weight/height2 (unit, kg/m2). Based on preoperative conditions, the participants were categorized into underweight (BMI<18.5), normal-weight (BMI=18.5-22.9), overweight (BMI=23-24.9), and obese (BMI≥25) groups according to the Asian standards [82, 83]. Preoperatively, gastroscopy, barium meal, CT and/or MRI assessments were routinely performed, forming the basis of tumor location and clincal staging. Tumor length, pathological type, Borrmann type for advanced diseases, differentiation, harvested and metastatic lymph nodes, neuro-invasion, and tumor thrombosis were obtained from the pathological report, and tumor pTNM stage was according to the TNM classification system (7th version) by AJCC/UICC [84] with recoding done when necessary. Surgical parameters (e.g., excision and reconstruction methods, and duration) were based on the surgery and anesthesia records. All patients’ peripheral blood samples were collected into tubes 2-3 days pre-operation, and all blood measurements were conducted within 0.5 hour after blood collection. Pretreatment peripheral blood parameters were obtained from the clinical laboratory test results. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <130 g/L in men and <120 g/L in women according to WHO, and thrombocytopenia as <140×109/L. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which is potentially prognostically significant [55], was calculated as the ratios of the absolute counts of neutrophil to lymphocyte.

Follow-up

All participants were prospectively followed-up until December 2016, which was conducted in regular intervals according to our standard protocols (every 3 months for the initial 2 postoperative years, every 6 months during years 3-5, and every year thereafter). Patients’ assessments routinely comprised clinical assessments, laboratory examinations, and imaging evaluations. Patients’ relatives were encouraged to report any endpoint events immediately through telephone contact.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the overall patients and the four BMI groups, and comparisons of demographical and clinical parameters among the groups were performed using χ2 test for measurement data and Analysis of Variance test for count data. The multivariable logistic regression model was applied to investigate BMI-associated factors, adjusting for gender, age, preoperative hemoglobin, platelet and NLR, tumor location, pathology, differentiation, length, pT stage, metastatic-harvested lymph node ratio, neuro-invasion, and tumor thrombosis.

Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was the primary endpoint, and was defined as the interval between resection and GC-/AEG-associated mortality/last follow-up. The CSS-associated clinicopathological parameters were explored first using univariate Cox analysis applying continuous data, and further by the multivariable Cox regression models adjusting for gender, age, BMI, presurgical hemoglobin, platelet and NLR, surgery type (open/laparoscopic), resection and reconstruction types, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, tumor location, pathology, differentiation, length, pT stage, positive-harvested lymph node ratio, neuro-invasion, and thrombosis. The multivariable variable Cox regressions were further used to assess associations of underweight, overweight, and obesity versus normal-weight with CSS in various subgroups according to gender, age group, tumor location, differentiation, pTNM stage, and preoperational anemia and thrombocytopenia. R (version 3.3.2, Vienna, Austria) was used for data analyses, with two-sided P<0.05 indicating statistical significance, and P<0.01 strong significance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to most sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions, and are grateful to Miss Sherry Tan for her kind language assistance.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no.: 81572350, to Prof. A-Man Xu). The funder played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:E359-386.

2. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, Jemal A, Yu XQ, He J. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66:115-132.

3. Huang L, Xu AM. Adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: controversial classification, surgical management, and clinicopathology. Chin J Cancer Res. 2014; 26:226-230.

4. Noh SH, Park SR, Yang HK, Chung HC, Chung IJ, Kim SW, Kim HH, Choi JH, Kim HK, Yu W, Lee JI, Shin DB, Ji J, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15:1389-1396.

5. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017; 20:1-19.

6. Hasegawa S, Yoshikawa T. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: incidence, characteristics, and treatment strategies. Gastric Cancer. 2010; 13:63-73.

7. Wu XJ, Miao RL, Li ZY, Bu ZD, Zhang LH, Wu AW, Zong XL, Li SX, Shan F, Ji X, Ren H, Ji JF. Prognostic value of metastatic lymph node ratio as an additional tool to the TNM stage system in gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41:927-933.

8. Zhao LY, Li CC, Jia LY, Chen XL, Zhang WH, Chen XZ, Yang K, Liu K, Wang YG, Xue L, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP, et al. Superiority of lymph node ratio-based staging system for prognostic prediction in 2575 patients with gastric cancer: validation analysis in a large single center. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:51069-51081. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.9714.

9. Fukunaga S, Nagami Y, Shiba M, Ominami M, Tanigawa T, Yamagami H, Tanaka H, Muguruma K, Watanabe T, Tominaga K, Fujiwara Y, Ohira M, Hirakawa K, Arakawa T. Long-term prognosis of expanded-indication differentiated-type early gastric cancer treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery using propensity score analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85:143-152.

10. Kauppila JH, Lagergren J. The surgical management of esophago-gastric junctional cancer. Surg Oncol. 2016; 25:394-400.

11. Kim TJ, Lee H, Min YW, Min BH, Lee JH, Kim KM, Kim MJ, Kim K, Rhee PL, Kim JJ. One-dimensional and 2-dimensional tumor size measurement for prediction of lymph node metastasis in differentiated early gastric cancer with minute submucosal invasion. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85:730-736.

12. Zhao LY, Chen XL, Wang YG, Xin Y, Zhang WH, Wang YS, Chen XZ, Yang K, Liu K, Xue L, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP, et al. A new predictive model combined of tumor size, lymph nodes count and lymphovascular invasion for survival prognosis in patients with lymph node-negative gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:72300-72310. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11035.

13. Sahin AG, Aydin C, Unver M, Pehlivanoglu K. Predictive value of preoperative neutrophil lymphocyte ratio in determining the stage of gastric tumor. Med Sci Monit. 2017; 23:1973-1979.

14. Ock CY, Nam AR, Lee J, Bang JH, Lee KH, Han SW, Kim TY, Im SA, Kim TY, Bang YJ, Oh DY. Prognostic implication of antitumor immunity measured by the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and serum cytokines and angiogenic factors in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2017; 20:254-262.

15. Bowen RC, Little NA, Harmer JR, Ma J, Mirabelli LG, Roller KD, Breivik AM, Signor E, Miller AB, Khong HT. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicator in gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:32171-32189. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16291.

16. Zhang JW, Huang L, Xu AM. Preoperative monocyte-lymphocyte and neutrophil-lymphocyte but not platelet-lymphocyte ratios are predictive of clinical outcomes in resected patients with non-metastatic Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: a prospective cohort study (the AMONP corhort). Oncotarget. 2017; 8:57516-57527. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15497.

17. Ye X, Liu J, Chen Y, Wang N, Lu R. The impact of hemoglobin level and transfusion on the outcomes of chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8:4228-4235.

18. Chen XL, Xue L, Wang W, Chen HN, Zhang WH, Liu K, Chen XZ, Yang K, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP, Zhou ZG, Hu JK. Prognostic significance of the combination of preoperative hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte and platelet in patients with gastric carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Oncotarget. 2015; 6:41370-41382. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5629.

19. Wang J, Qu J, Li Z, Che X, Liu J, Teng Y, Jin B, Zhao M, Liu Y, Qu X. Pretreatment platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with the response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. J Clin Lab Anal. 2017.

20. Wang D, Zheng W, Wang SM, Wang JB, Wei WQ, Liang H, Qiao YL, Boffetta P. Estimation of cancer incidence and mortality attributable to overweight, obesity, and physical inactivity in China. Nutr Cancer. 2012; 64:48-56.

21. Song M, Choi JY, Yang JJ, Sung H, Lee Y, Lee HW, Kong SH, Lee HJ, Kim HH, Kim SG, Yang HK, Kang D. Obesity at adolescence and gastric cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2015; 26:247-256.

22. Yang P, Zhou Y, Chen B, Wan HW, Jia GQ, Bai HL, Wu XT. Overweight, obesity and gastric cancer risk: results from a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45:2867-2873.

23. Camargo MC, Freedman ND, Hollenbeck AR, Abnet CC, Rabkin CS. Height, weight, and body mass index associations with gastric cancer subsites. Gastric Cancer. 2014; 17:463-468.

24. Chen Y, Liu L, Wang X, Wang J, Yan Z, Cheng J, Gong G, Li G. Body mass index and risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of a population with more than ten million from 24 prospective studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013; 22:1395-1408.

25. Fan H, Li X, Zheng L, Chen X, Lan Q, Wu H, Ding X, Qian D, Shen Y, Yu Z, Fan L, Chen M, Tomlinson B, et al. Abdominal obesity is strongly associated with Cardiovascular Disease and its Risk Factors in Elderly and very Elderly Community-dwelling Chinese. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:21521.

26. Xue H, Wang C, Li Y, Chen J, Yu L, Liu X, Li J, Cao J, Deng Y, Guo D, Yang X, Huang J, Gu D. Incidence of type 2 diabetes and number of events attributable to abdominal obesity in China: a cohort study. J Diabetes. 2016; 8:190-198.

27. Lee YC, Yang PJ, Zhong Y, Clancy TE, Lin MT, Wang J. Lymph node ratio-based staging system outperforms the seventh AJCC system for gastric cancer: validation analysis with National Taiwan University Hospital Cancer Registry. Am J Clin Oncol. 2017; 40:35-41.

28. Wang Z, Zhang X, Liang J, Hu J, Zeng W, Zhou Z. Short-term outcomes for laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for body mass index >/=30 patients with gastric cancer. J Surg Res. 2015; 195:83-88.

29. Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Kim Y, Poultsides GA, Fields RC, Bloomston M, Cho CS, Votanopoulos K, Maithel SK, Pawlik TM. Impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes and survival after resection for gastric cancer. J Surg Res. 2015; 195:74-82.

30. Bickenbach KA, Denton B, Gonen M, Brennan MF, Coit DG, Strong VE. Impact of obesity on perioperative complications and long-term survival of patients with gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20:780-787.

31. Jun JH, Yoo JE, Lee JA, Kim YS, Sunwoo S, Kim BS, Yook JH. Anemia after gastrectomy in long-term survivors of gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2016; 28:162-168.

32. Wong J, Rahman S, Saeed N, Lin HY, Almhanna K, Shridhar R, Hoffe S, Meredith KL. Effect of body mass index in patients undergoing resection for gastric cancer: a single center US experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18:505-511.

33. Jun DH, Kim BJ, Park JH, Kim JG, Chi KC, Park JM, Kim MK, Kang H. Preoperative body mass index may determine the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2016; 68:1295-1300.

34. Liu BZ, Tao L, Chen YZ, Li XZ, Dong YL, Ma YJ, Li SG, Li F, Zhang WJ. Preoperative body mass index, blood albumin and triglycerides predict survival for patients with gastric cancer. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0157401.

35. Murphy PM, Blackshaw GR, Paris HJ, Edwards P, Barry JD, Lewis WG. Prospective evaluation of nutritional status related to body mass indices and outcomes after modified D2 gastrectomy for carcinoma. Clin Nutr. 2004; 23:477-483.

36. Goh LY, Goh KL. Obesity: an epidemiological perspective from Asia and its relationship to gastrointestinal and liver cancers. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 28:54-58.

37. Aballay LR, Eynard AR, Diaz Mdel P, Navarro A, Munoz SE. Overweight and obesity: a review of their relationship to metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in South America. Nutr Rev. 2013; 71:168-179.

38. Tilg H, Moschen AR. Mechanisms behind the link between obesity and gastrointestinal cancers. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014; 28:599-610.

39. Li Q, Zhang J, Zhou Y, Qiao L. Obesity and gastric cancer. Front Biosci. 2012; 17:2383-2390.

40. Kant P, Hull MA. Excess body weight and obesity--the link with gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 8:224-238.

41. Kim HJ, Kim N, Kim HY, Lee HS, Yoon H, Shin CM, Park YS, Park do J, Kim HH, Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim HM, Lee DH. Relationship between body mass index and the risk of early gastric cancer and dysplasia regardless of Helicobacter pylori infection. Gastric Cancer. 2015; 18:762-773.

42. Lin XJ, Wang CP, Liu XD, Yan KK, Li S, Bao HH, Zhao LY, Liu X. Body mass index and risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014; 44:783-791.

43. Migita K, Takayama T, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Tanaka T, Ito M, Kunishige T, Nakade H, Nakajima Y. Impact of being underweight on the long-term outcomes of patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2016; 19:735-743.

44. Lee HH, Park JM, Song KY, Choi MG, Park CH. Survival impact of postoperative body mass index in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 52:129-137.

45. Qin Y, Melse-Boonstra A, Pan X, Yuan B, Dai Y, Zhao J, Zimmermann MB, Kok FJ, Zhou M, Shi Z. Anemia in relation to body mass index and waist circumference among Chinese women. Nutr J. 2013; 12:10.

46. Skjelbakken T, Dahl IM, Lochen ML. Changes in body mass index and smoking habits have a different impact on hemoglobin concentration in men and women: a longitudinal follow-up of the Tromso Study, 1994-2002. Gend Med. 2010; 7:230-239.

47. Park SH, Lee J, Lee SH, Park JO, Kim K, Kim WS, Jung CW, Park YS, Kang WK, Park K, Kim S, Bang SM, Cho EK, et al. Anemia is the strongest prognostic factor for outcomes of 5-fluorouracil-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006; 57:91-96.

48. Shen JG, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Kim J, Choi SH, Noh SH. Pretreatment anemia is associated with poorer survival in patients with stage I and II gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2005; 91:126-130.

49. Yang XD, Jiang S, Wang G, Zhang R, Zhang J, Zhu JS. Link of obesity and gastrointestinal cancer: crossroad of inflammation and oxidative stress. J Biol Regulat Homeost Agents. 2015; 29:755-760.

50. Fujihara S, Mori H, Kobara H, Nishiyama N, Kobayashi M, Oryu M, Masaki T. Metabolic syndrome, obesity, and gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012; 2012:483623.

51. Jiang Y, Xu H, Jiang H, Ding S, Zheng T. Pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio may associate with gastric cancer presence. Cancer Biomark. 2016; 16:523-528.

52. Sun J, Chen X, Gao P, Song Y, Huang X, Yang Y, Zhao J, Ma B, Gao X, Wang Z. Can the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio be used to determine gastric cancer treatment outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Markers. 2016; 2016:7862469.

53. Xu AM, Huang L, Zhu L, Wei ZJ. Significance of peripheral neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio among gastric cancer patients and construction of a treatment-predictive model: a study based on 1131 cases. Am J Cancer Res. 2014; 4:189-195.

54. Grenader T, Waddell T, Peckitt C, Oates J, Starling N, Cunningham D, Bridgewater J. Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: exploratory analysis of the REAL-2 trial. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27:687-692.

55. Wang SC, Chou JF, Strong VE, Brennan MF, Capanu M, Coit DG. Pretreatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio independently predicts disease-specific survival in resectable gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016; 263:292-297.

56. Kocoglu H, Dogan H, Oguz B, Ocak Serin S, Okuturlar Y, Gunaldi M, Erismis B, Ozdemir B, Tural D, Hursitoglu M, Harmankaya O, Kumbasar A. Comparison of survival rates, tumor stages, and localization in between obese and nonobese patients with gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016; 2016:9382750.

57. Stark A, Stahl MS, Kirchner HL, Krum S, Prichard J, Evans J. Body mass index at the time of diagnosis and the risk of advanced stages and poorly differentiated cancers of the breast: findings from a case-series study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010; 34:1381-1386.

58. Maccio A, Madeddu C, Gramignano G, Mulas C, Floris C, Massa D, Astara G, Chessa P, Mantovani G. Correlation of body mass index and leptin with tumor size and stage of disease in hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer: preliminary results and therapeutic implications. J Mol Med (Berl). 2010; 88:677-686.

59. Chagpar AB, McMasters KM, Saul J, Nurko J, Martin RC 2nd, Scoggins CR, Edwards MJ. Body mass index influences palpability but not stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. Am Surg. 2007; 73:555-560; discussion 560.

60. Pummer K, Stettner H, Augustin H, Zigeuner R, Habermann H, Schips L, Riedler I, Trummer H, Lipsky K, Williams SB. The use of body mass index to predict pathological stage in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Onkologie. 2007; 30:489-494.

61. Djajadiningrat RS, van Werkhoven E, Horenblas S. Penile cancer stage, survival and body mass index. Urol Int. 2015; 94:220-224.

62. Hayashi Y, Correa AM, Hofstetter WL, Vaporciyan AA, Mehran RJ, Rice DC, Suzuki A, Lee JH, Bhutani MS, Welsh J, Lin SH, Maru DM, Swisher SG, Ajani JA. Patients with high body mass index tend to have lower stage of esophageal carcinoma at diagnosis. Dis Esophagus. 2012; 25:614-622.

63. Hoyo C, Cook MB, Kamangar F, Freedman ND, Whiteman DC, Bernstein L, Brown LM, Risch HA, Ye W, Sharp L, Wu AH, Ward MH, Casson AG, et al. Body mass index in relation to oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas: a pooled analysis from the International BEACON Consortium. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41:1706-1718.

64. Struecker B, Biebl M, Dadras M, Chopra S, Denecke C, Spenke J, Heilmann AC, Bahra M, Sauer IM, Pratschke J, Andreou A. The impact of obesity on outcomes following resection for gastric cancer. Dig Surg. 2017; 34:133-141.

65. Lin YS, Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, Chen JH, Lo SS, Hsieh MC, Li AF, Chiou SH, Wu CW. Impact of body mass index on postoperative outcome of advanced gastric cancer after curative surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 17:1382-1391.

66. Kulig J, Sierzega M, Kolodziejczyk P, Dadan J, Drews M, Fraczek M, Jeziorski A, Krawczyk M, Starzynska T, Wallner G; Polish Gastric Cancer Study Group. Implications of overweight in gastric cancer: a multicenter study in a Western patient population. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010; 36:969-976.

67. Eroglu C, Orhan O, Karaca H, Unal D, Dikilitas M, Ozkan M, Kaplan B. The effect of being overweight on survival in patients with gastric cancer undergoing adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013; 22:133-140.

68. Wu XS, Wu WG, Li ML, Yang JH, Ding QC, Zhang L, Mu JS, Gu J, Dong P, Lu JH, Liu YB. Impact of being overweight on the surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19:4596-4606.

69. Chen HN, Chen XZ, Zhang WH, Yang K, Chen XL, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP, Zhou ZG, Hu JK. The impact of body mass index on the surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer: a 10-Year, single-institution cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94:e1769.

70. Matowicka-Karna J, Kamocki Z, Polinska B, Osada J, Kemona H. Platelets and inflammatory markers in patients with gastric cancer. Clin Dev Immunol. 2013; 2013:401623.

71. Heras P, Hatzopoulos A, Kritikos N, Kritikos K. Platelet count and tumor progression in gastric cancer patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010; 45:1005-1006.

72. Selwan EM, Finicle BT, Kim SM, Edinger AL. Attacking the supply wagons to starve cancer cells to death. FEBS Lett. 2016; 590:885-907.

73. Li L, Li X, Chu S, Tian J, Su J, Tian H, Sun R, Yang K. Does overweight affect outcomes in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer? A meta-analysis of 25 cohort studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014; 44:408-415.

74. Pata G, Solaini L, Roncali S, Pasini M, Ragni F. Impact of obesity on early surgical and oncologic outcomes after total gastrectomy with “over-D1” lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2013; 37:1072-1081.

75. Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Hashimoto H, Ayanian JZ. Body mass index and outcomes following gastrointestinal cancer surgery in Japan. Br J Surg. 2013; 100:1335-1343.

76. Park SW, Lee HL, Ju YW, Jun DW, Lee OY, Han DS, Yoon BC, Choi HS, Hahm JS. Inverse association between visceral obesity and lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 19:242-250.

77. Eom BW, Joo J, Yoon HM, Ryu KW, Kim YW, Lee JH. A body shape index has a good correlation with postoperative complications in gastric cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21:1115-1122.

78. Cho H, Yoshikawa T, Oba MS, Hirabayashi N, Shirai J, Aoyama T, Hayashi T, Yamada T, Oba K, Morita S, Sakamoto J, Tsuburaya A. Matched pair analysis to examine the effects of a planned preoperative exercise program in early gastric cancer patients with metabolic syndrome to reduce operative risk: the Adjuvant Exercise for General Elective Surgery (AEGES) study group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21:2044-2050.

79. Attaallah W, Uprak K, Javadov M, Yegen C. Impact of body mass index on number of lymph nodes retrieved in gastric cancer patients. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014; 61:2425-2427.

80. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310:2191-2194.

81. Grimes DA, Hubacher D, Nanda K, Schulz KF, Moher D, Altman DG. The Good Clinical Practice guideline: a bronze standard for clinical research. Lancet. 2005; 366:172-174.

82. Kawada T, Morihashi M, Ueda H, Sirato T. Body mass index of 23 or more is a risk factor for hypertension and hyperlipidemia in Japanese workers. Percept Mot Skills. 2007; 104:733-738.

83. Shiwaku K, Anuurad E, Enkhmaa B, Nogi A, Kitajima K, Shimono K, Yamane Y, Oyunsuren T. Overweight Japanese with body mass indexes of 23.0-24.9 have higher risks for obesity-associated disorders: a comparison of Japanese and Mongolians. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004; 28:152-158.

84. Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:3077-3079.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PII: 19251