The clinical significance and risk factors of solitary lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 10; no. 1; p. e0114939
• Main Authors: Ma, Min, Chen, Shi, Zhu, Bao-yan, Zhao, Bai-Wei, Wang, Hua-She, Xiang, Jun, Wu, Xiao-Bin, Lin, Yi-Jia, Zhou, Zhi-Wei, Peng, Jun-Sheng, Chen, Ying-Bo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 29.01.2015; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy; Cancer; Cancer metastasis; Clinical significance; Data processing; Endoscopy; Evaluation; Female; Gastric cancer; Gastroenterology; Health aspects; Health risks; Hospitals; Humans; Laboratories; Lymph; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph nodes; Lymph Nodes - pathology; Lymph Nodes - surgery; Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology; Lymphatic system; Male; Metastases; Metastasis; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Oncology; Patients; Prognosis; Risk analysis; Risk Factors; Senators; Spleen; Splenic artery; Stomach cancer; Stomach Neoplasms - pathology; Stomach Neoplasms - surgery; Studies; Surgery; Test procedures; Ultrasonic imaging; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114939

To assess the clinical significance and risk factors of solitary lymph node metastasis (SLM) in gastric carcinoma and establish a more accurate method to evaluate the possibility of lymph node metastasis (LM). A total of 385 patients with gastric carcinoma who underwent D2 lymphadenectomy at the Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University were included in this research. Then we used a group of data from Sun Yat-sen University Gastrointestinal Hospital (SYSUGIH) to validate the accuracy of our developed method. The χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, COX model, and discriminate analysis were used to analyze the data with SPSS13.0. We found that the LM number and pathological T staging were independent prognostic risk factors. CEA grading, LN status by CT, and T staging by CT were independent risk factors for LM in gastric carcinoma. In addition, we developed the equation Y = -5.0 + X1 + 1.8X3 + 0.7X4 (X1 = CEA grading, X3 = LN status by CT, X4 = T staging by CT) to evaluate the situation of LM. The data from SYSUGIH shows this equation has a better accuracy compared with CT. SLM is an independent risk factor in gastric cancer. And there was no survival difference between the skip metastasis group and the other SLM group (P = 0.659). It is inappropriate for the patient with SLM doing a standard D2 lymphadenectomy, due to the fact that LM rarely occurs in the splenic artery, splenic hilum. The risk factors for LM include CEA grading, LN status by CT, and T staging by CT. And we can use Y = -5.0 + X1 + 1.8X3 + 0.7X4 (X1, CEA grading, X3 = LN status by CT, X4 = T staging by CT, the critical value is 0.3) to estimate the possibility of LM, which has a better accuracy compared with CT.