Tumor deposit serves as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer: A propensity score‐matched analysis comparing survival outcomes

• Published in: Cancer medicine (Malden, MA) Vol. 9; no. 10; pp. 3268 - 3277
• Main Authors: Wenquan, Liang, Yuhua, Liu, Jianxin, Cui, Hongqing, Xi, Kecheng, Zhang, Jiyang, Li, Yunhe, Gao, Yi, Liu, Wang, Zhang, Shaoqing, Li, Yixun, Lu, Shen, Qiao, Wanguo, Xue, Zhi, Qiao, Lin, Chen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.05.2020; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Age; Clinical Cancer Research; Colorectal cancer; Gastrectomy; Gastric cancer; Hospitals; Laparoscopy; Lymphatic system; Medical prognosis; Medical records; Metastasis; Original Research; Patients; staging; Statistical analysis; Studies; Surgery; Survival; Survival analysis; tumor deposit; tumor deposit; gastric cancer; staging; survival
• ISSN: 2045-7634; 2045-7634
• DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2963

Background Gastric cancer (GC) treatment is determined by accurate tumor staging. The value of tumor deposit (TD) in prognostic prediction staging system is not yet determined. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical information on GC patients who underwent gastrectomy at the Department of General Surgery of the Chinese PLA General Hospital from July 2014 to June 2016. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the possibility of selection bias according to the presence of TD. Results Of the 1034 GC patients, 240 (23.21%) presented with TD, which was associated with younger age and larger tumor size (all P < .05). TD‐positive patients had a worse survival than TD‐negative patients before (P < .001) and after (P = .017) matching. Multivariable analysis showed that mortality risk of patients with TD increased by 58%, 62%, 37%, and 40% in the crude (HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.32‐1.89, P < .001), adjusted I (HR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.35‐1.94, P < .001), adjusted II (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.13‐1.66, P = .001), and adjusted III (HR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.16‐1.68, P < .001) models before matching. Similarly, in the PSM cohort patients with TD had worse prognosis in the crude (HR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07‐1.63, P = .011), adjusted I (HR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09‐1.67, P = .005), adjusted II (HR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.00‐1.58, P = .049), and adjusted III (HR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.07‐1.65, P = .010) models. TD had a similar value range between N1 and N2 stages among different models. Conclusions Among GC patients, TD is associated with survival and may have a role in the staging of patients. Kaplan‐Meier curves for TD negative and positive gastric patients before and after propensity score matching.