pT1N1M0早期胃癌术后辅助治疗临床意义的探索
The Clinical Significance of Postoperative Adjuvant Therapy for pT1N1M0 Early Gastric Cancer
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.14112895, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 荆瑶瑶*, 赵佳宇:青岛大学医学部,山东 青岛;刘自民#:青岛大学附属医院消化肿瘤诊疗中心,山东 青岛
关键词: pT1N1M0早期胃癌预后辅助化疗辅助放疗pT1N1M0 Early Gastric Cancer Prognosis Adjuvant Chemotherapy Adjuvant Radiotherapy
摘要: 背景:pT1N1M0分期胃癌术后辅助治疗目前各大指南无统一共识。本研究的目的是确定辅助放化疗对pT1N1M0胃癌根治术后患者有无生存获益,分析影响pT1N1M0胃癌患者预后的危险因素。方法:从SEER数据库中选择2004年至2019年胃切除术后pT1N1M0 GC患者319例。采用Kaplan-Meier法和log-rank检验分析总生存率。采用Cox比例风险回归模型对影响pT1N1M0胃癌根治性切除患者预后的因素进行单变量和多变量分析。结果:生存分析显示术后辅助化疗(5年OS:52.4% vs. 75.8%,p < 0.001)和辅助放疗(5年OS: 59.9% vs. 71.9%,p = 0.001)可显著延长pT1N1M0胃癌患者的生存期。多因素Cox回归分析显示年龄(p = 0.001),原发部位(p = 0.009),检查淋巴结数量(ELNC) (p = 0.007)和辅助化疗(p = 0.006)是与OS相关的独立预后因素。这些变量符合Cox回归比例风险假设检验(p > 0.05)。结论:术后辅助化疗及辅助放疗能够改善pT1N1M0 GC患者OS,年龄、辅助化疗、肿瘤部位、ELNC是pT1N1M0胃癌预后的独立影响因素。
Abstract: Background: Currently, there is no consensus on postoperative adjuvant therapy for pT1N1M0 gastric cancer in major guidelines. The aim of this study is to determine the survival benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy, and to analyze the risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer. Methods: A total of 319 patients with pT1N1M0 GC after gastrectomy from 2004 to 2019 were selected from the SEER database. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to analyze the overall survival rate. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer after radical resection were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: Survival analysis showed that postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (5-year OS: 52.4% vs. 75.8%, p < 0.001) and adjuvant radiotherapy (5-year OS: 59.9% vs. 71.9%, p = 0.001) could significantly prolong the survival of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age (p = 0.001), primary site (p = 0.009), number of examined lymph node count (ELNC) (p = 0.007) and adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.006) were independent prognostic factors associated with OS. These variables were in accordance with the Cox regression proportional hazards hypothesis test (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy can improve the OS of patients with pT1N1M0 GC. Age, adjuvant chemotherapy, tumor location, and ELNC are independent prognostic factors for pT1N1M0 gastric cancer.
文章引用:荆瑶瑶, 赵佳宇, 刘自民. pT1N1M0早期胃癌术后辅助治疗临床意义的探索[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(11): 416-425. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.14112895

1. 引言

根据美国AJCC分期系统及日本胃癌分类指南(第三版),pT1N1M0为局限于粘膜层或黏膜下层并伴有1个或2个淋巴结转移[1] [2]。虽然pT1N1M0患者根治性切除术后预后极佳,然而仍有约3.1%~4.7%患者出现复发转移,包括肝、骨、肺和肾上腺等血行转移、远端淋巴结复发、残胃复发、腹膜复发等[3]-[7]。根据CSCO指南及NCCN指南,pT1N10胃癌患者术后应行术后辅助治疗。然而,日本胃癌治疗指南对于分期为pT1N1M0的早期胃癌患者推荐术后仅随访观察[8]。pT1N1M0术后辅助化疗及辅助放疗的应用目前各大指南未形成统一共识。目前临床工作中,对I期胃癌,特别是pT1N1M0分期胃癌的术后辅助治疗,主要由外科学或肿瘤专家进行经验性治疗。

因此,本研究回顾性分析SEER数据库319例pT1N1M0早期胃癌术后患者,以确定pT1N1M0患者的辅助治疗的临床意义,分析影响pT1N1M0胃癌独立预后危险因素,筛选高危人群,为临床治疗方案选择提供参考。

2. 材料和方法

2.1. 患者来源

我们从SEER数据库(https://www.seer.cancer.gov/)“Incidence-SEER Research Data, 17 Registries, Nov 2023 Sub (2000~2021)”数据集中下载pT1N1M0胃癌患者的数据。该数据库包含约35%美国人口的癌症流行病学和人口统计学回顾性研究信息。由于SEER数据库是公开的,不需要知情同意,因此本研究免除了本机构伦理委员会的审查。本研究纳入2004~2019年根治性胃切除术后(代码范围:RX Summ--Surg Prim Site (1998+) = 30 − 52) [9]诊断为pT1N1M0早期胃癌的患者。

纳入标准:(i) 原发部位为胃;(ii) 显微镜下细胞或组织学病理诊断明确;(iii) 分期符合pT1N1M0;(iv) 确诊为单原发肿瘤;

排除标准:(i) 未接受根治性手术;(ii) 阳性淋巴结非1~2个;(iii) 伴有远处转移;(iv) 术前接受综合治疗;(iv) 在切除前或切除中接受放疗和/或化疗;(v) 年龄未满18周岁;(vi) 生存结果未知;(vii) 检查区域淋巴结未知;(viii) 肿瘤大小无确切数值。

根据上述标准,最终319例患者被纳入本研究。从SEER数据库中提取以下人口统计学和病理学特征:种族、性别、诊断年份、年龄、原发肿瘤部位、组织类型、肿瘤大小、检查的区域淋巴结数量、阳性区域淋巴结数量、辅助放疗和辅助化疗情况、生存情况。

2.2. 统计学方法

通过ROC曲线确定检查的淋巴结数量(ELNC)的最佳临界值。治疗相关包括放疗(有,没有/未知),化疗(有,没有/未知)。本研究以OS作为研究终点,定义为诊断至最后一次随访或任何原因死亡的时间。采用Kaplan-Meier (K-M)计算OS,并通过log-rank检验可信度。使用卡方检验或Fisher’s精确检验比较分类变量。采用Cox比例风险回归模型对影响pT1N1M0胃癌根治性切除患者预后的因素进行单变量和多变量分析。在我们的研究中,根据首次手术后是否给予辅助化疗,将患者分为化疗(CTx)和非化疗(non-CTx)两组。根据是否给予辅助放疗,将患者分为放疗(RTx)和非放疗(non-RTx)两组。本研究GraphPad Prism版本为8.0.2,生存分析的统计分析采用SPSS (v.26)软件。双侧p < 0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

3. 研究结果

3.1. 基线特征

共有319例患者符合纳入和排除标准,纳入本研究。ROC曲线下面积显示检查的淋巴结数量最佳截断值为16。纳入研究的所有患者的基线特征见表1。诊断年份以2004~2009为主(139例,43.6%)。65岁以上患者205例(64.3%),65岁以下的患者114例(35.7%),男性患者175例(54.9%),女性患者144例(45.1%)。白种人189例(59.2%),黑种人35例(11.0%)。90例肿瘤部位位于胃底和贲门(28.2%),109例位于胃窦和幽门(34.2%),120例位于其余部位(34.6%)。组织学类型中腺癌241例(75.5%),印戒细胞癌50例(15.7%)。肿瘤大小以<20 mm为主(128例,40.1%),阳性淋巴结1个的患者有205例(64.3%),2个阳性淋巴结转移的患者有114例(35.7%),大多数淋巴结检查数量<16 (177例,55.5%)。其中,接受辅助化疗的患者163例(51.1%),未接受辅助化疗的患者156例(48.9%)。119例(37.3%)患者接受了辅助放疗,200例(62.7%)未接受辅助放疗。

纳入所有患者的平均生存时间为117.4个月(95% CI: 107.2~127.5),中位生存时间为123.0个月(95% CI: 94.7~151.3)。

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer after surgery in the SEER database

1. SEER数据库pT1N1M0胃癌术后患者的基线特征

Characteristic

Total SEER (n = 319)

Characteristic

Total SEER (n = 319)

Year of diagnosis

Histology

2004~2009

139 (43.6)

Adenocarcinoma

241 (75.5)

2010~2014

113 (35.4)

signet-ring cell carcinoma

50 (15.7)

2015~2019

67 (21.0)

Others

28 (8.8)

Age

ELNC

<65

114 (35.7)

<16

177 (55.5)

≥65

205 (64.3)

≥16

142 (44.5)

Gender

Tumor_size

Female

144 (45.1)

≤20 mm

128 (40.1)

Male

175 (54.9)

≤30mm

79 (24.8)

Race

>30 mm

112 (35.1)

White

189 (59.2)

Chemotherapy

Black

35 (11.0)

None/Unknown

156 (48.9)

Others

95 (29.8)

Yes

163 (51.1)

Primary site

Radiotherapy

Fundus and cardia

90 (28.2)

None/Unknown

200 (62.7)

Antrum and pylorus

109 (34.2)

Yes

119 (37.3)

Others

120 (37.6)

pLNs

1

205 (64.3)

2

114 (35.7)

Abbreviations: ELNC, examined lymph node count; pLNs, positive lymph nodes.

3.2. 辅助性放化疗对预后的影响

与未化疗组相比,辅助化疗组患者年龄以≥65岁为主,未行放疗比例较高,1个阳性淋巴结转移比例较高,胃底和贲门比例较低,差异与统计学意义(p < 0.05) (表2)。与未放疗组相比,辅助放疗组患者年龄以≥65岁为主,ELNC ≥ 16比例较高,1个阳性淋巴结转移比例较高。差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05) (表3)。生存分析显示术后ACT (5年OS:52.4% vs. 75.8%,p < 0.001)和ART (5年OS:59.9% vs. 71.9%,p = 0.001)可显著延长T1N1胃癌患者的生存期(图1)。

Table 2. Clinicopathologic features of the CTx and non-CTx groups

2. CTx组与non-CTx组的临床病理特征

Characteristic

CTx Group

n (%)

Non-CTx Group

n (%)

p value

Year of diagnosis

0.193

2004~2009

76 (48.7)

63 (38.7)

2010~2014

50 (32.1)

63 (38.7)

2015~2019

30 (19.2)

37 (22.7)

Age

< 0.001

<65

29 (18.6)

85 (52.1)

≥65

127 (81.4)

78 (47.9)

Gender

0.420

Female

74 (47.4)

70 (42.9)

Male

82 (52.6)

93 (57.1)

Race

0.674

White

92 (59.0)

97 (59.5)

Black

15 (9.6)

20 (12.3)

Others

49 (31.4)

46 (28.2)

Primary site

0.080

Fundus and cardia

35 (22.4)

55 (33.7)

Antrum and pylorus

58 (37.2)

51 (31.3)

Others

63 (40.4)

57 (35.0)

Histology

0.048

Adenocarcinoma

120 (76.9)

121 (74.2)

signet-ring cell carcinoma

18 (11.5)

32 (19.6)

Others

18 (11.5)

10 (6.1)

ELNC

0.304

<16

82 (52.6)

95 (58.3)

≥16

74 (47.4)

68 (41.7)

Tumor_size

0.279

≤20 mm

61 (39.1)

67 (41.1)

≤30mm

34 (21.8)

45 (27.6)

>30 mm

61 (39.1)

51 (31.3)

pLNs

0.023

1

110 (70.5)

95 (58.3)

2

46 (29.5)

68 (41.7)

Radiotherapy

0.001

None/Unknown

147 (94.2)

53 (32.5)

Yes

9 (5.8)

110 (67.5)

Abbreviations: CTx, chemotherapy; ELNC, examined lymph node count; pLNs, positive lymph nodes.

Table 3. Clinicopathologic characteristics of the RTx and non-RTx groups

3. RTx组与non-RTx组的临床病理特征

Characteristic

RTx Group

n (%)

Non-RTx Group

n (%)

p value

Year of diagnosis

0.131

2004~2009

82 (41.0)

57 (47.9)

2010~2014

69 (34.5)

44 (37.0)

2015~2019

49 (24.5)

18 (15.1)

Age

0.001

<65

58 (29.0)

56 (47.1)

≥65

142 (71.0)

63 (52.9)

Gender

0.272

Female

95 (47.5)

49 (41.2)

Male

105 (52.5)

70 (58.8)

Race

0.345

White

120 (60.0)

69 (58.0)

Black

25 (12.5)

10 (8.4)

Others

55 (27.5)

40 (33.6)

Primary site

0.756

Fundus and cardia

54 (27.0)

36 (30.3)

Antrum and pylorus

71 (35.5)

38 (31.9)

Others

75 (37.5)

45 (37.8)

Histology

0.168

Adenocarcinoma

149 (74.5)

92 (77.3)

signet-ring cell carcinoma

29 (14.5)

21 (17.6)

Others

22 (11.0)

6 (5.0)

ELNC

0.001

<16

97 (48.5)

80 (67.2)

≥16

103 (51.5)

39 (32.8)

Tumor_size

0.371

≤20 mm

80 (40.0)

48 (40.3)

≤30mm

45 (22.5)

34 (28.6)

>30 mm

75 (37.5)

37 (31.1)

pLNs

0.006

1

140 (70.0)

65 (54.6)

2

60 (30.0)

54 (45.4)

Chemotherapy

< 0.001

None/Unknown

147 (73.5)

9 (7.6)

Yes

53 (26.5)

110 (92.4)

Abbreviations: RTx, radiotherapy; ELNC, examined lymph node count; pLNs, positive lymph nodes.

Figure 1. (A) K-M curves of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer after operation with adjuvant chemotherapy and without adjuvant chemotherapy; (B) K-M curves of patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer after operation with adjuvant radiotherapy and without adjuvant radiotherapy

1. (A) pT1N1M0期胃癌患者术后辅助化疗与未辅助化疗的K-M曲线;(B) pT1N1M0期胃癌患者术后辅助放疗与未辅助放疗的K-M曲线

3.3. T1N1M0胃癌预后的影响因素

对319例pT1N1M0的早期胃癌患者进行单因素Cox回归分析,年龄、诊断年份、ELNC、化疗和放疗为显著变量(p < 0.05) (表4)。将p < 0.1的变量纳入多因素回归分析。多因素Cox回归分析显示年龄(p = 0.001),原发部位(p = 0.009),ELNC (p = 0.007)和辅助化疗(p = 0.006)是与OS相关的独立预后因素。这些变量符合Cox回归比例风险假设检验(p > 0.05) (图2)。

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis of prognostic factors in patients with pT1N1M0 gastric cancer

4. 影响pT1N1M0期胃癌患者预后的单因素和多因素回归分析

Characteristic

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

HR

95% CI

p value

HR

95% CI

p value

Year of diagnosis

0.085

0.298

2004~2009

Ref

Ref

2010~2014

0.860

0.607~1.220

0.398

1.033

0.718~1.487

0.861

2015~2019

0.523

0.293~0.931

0.028

0.649

0.360~1.173

0.162

Age

<0.001

0.001

<65

Ref

Ref

≥65

2.603

1.784~3.799

<0.001

2.082

1.377~3.148

0.001

Gender

0.115

Female

Ref

Male

1.292

0.940~1.778

0.115

Race

0.227

0.184

White

Ref

Ref

Black

0.983

0.580~1.667

0.949

1.145

0.815~2.458

0.217

Others

0.729

0.507~1.049

0.089

0.820

0.562~1.197

0.304

Primary site

0.149

0.009

Fundus and cardia

Ref

Ref

Antrum and pylorus

0.685

0.461~1.017

0.060

0.540

0.356~0.819

0.004

Others

0.763

0.524~1.110

0.158

0.615

0.414~0.913

0.016

Histology

0.154

Adenocarcinoma

Ref

signet-ring cell carcinoma

0.751

0.481~1.172

0.207

Others

0.578

0.293~1.138

0.113

ELNC

0.007

0.007

<16

Ref

≥16

0.635

0.455~0.886

0.007

0.623

0.442~0.879

0.007

Tumor_size

0.352

≤20 mm

Ref

≤30mm

1.139

0.774~1.675

0.509

>30 mm

0.845

0.584~1.222

0.370

pLNs

0.415

1

Ref

2

0.871

0.625~1.214

0.415

Chemotherapy

<0.001

0.006

None/Unknown

Ref

Ref

Yes

0.429

0.310~0.593

<0.001

0.501

0.306~0.820

0.006

Radiotherapy

0.001

0.968

None/Unknown

Ref

Ref

Yes

0.572

0.408~0.801

0.001

0.990

0.608~1.613

0.968

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ELNC, examined lymph nodes count; pLNs, positive lymph nodes.

Figure 2. Risk hypothesis test of Cox regression proportion for chemotherapy, ELNC, age and primary site (p > 0.05)

2. 化疗、ELNC、年龄、原发部位符合Cox回归比例风险假设检验(p > 0.05)

4. 讨论

既往研究表明,与淋巴结阴性的早期胃癌相比,伴有淋巴结转移的早期胃癌复发率(10.6%~14.8%)明显升高[10]-[12]。因此,一些研究者建议对淋巴结阳性的早期胃癌进行辅助治疗,以避免手术切除后肿瘤复发。进展期胃癌术后辅助化疗的获益明确。ACTSGC研究[13]、CLASSIC研究[14]、JACCRO GC-07研究[15]、ARTIST/ARTIST2 [16]研究等大型临床试验,已证实II期及以上(pT1N2-3)胃癌患者可从术后辅助化疗中获益。由于I期胃癌患者预后良好,大多数研究胃癌术后化疗疗效的临床试验未纳入评估包括pT1N1M0在内的I期患者。INT-0116 试验纳入了IB期至IV期胃癌患者进行III期临床研究,研究显示辅助放化疗显著降低了总体复发率和局部区域复发率,然而未对IB期进行单独亚组分析[17]。对于I期胃癌,尤其是pT1N1M0,术后辅助治疗的必要性仍存在争议。本研究从SEER数据库中选取319例明确诊断为pT1N1M0的行胃癌根治术后的早期胃癌患者,统计分析pT1N1M0胃癌患者的5年OS,多因素分析探索影响pT1N1M0胃癌预后的独立危险因素,评估辅助治疗对术后生存的影响。

我们的研究结果表明,辅助化疗是影响pT1N1M0胃癌患者的独立预后危险因素。本研究结果支持既往在西方人群中进行的研究结论,辅助治疗能独立改善pT1N1M0胃癌患者OS [18] [19]。然而,来自东方国家的几项研究显示,与单纯手术相比,辅助化疗和辅助放化疗对pT1N1M0肿瘤复发无任何肿瘤学益处[3] [20] [21]。我们认为这可能是由于东西方人群之间种族、年龄、肿瘤大小、组织学类型等临床病理因素差异或潜在生物学特征差异以及淋巴结清扫范围不同导致[22],一定程度上会影响患者预后及辅助治疗决策的制定。尽管如此,在最新的一项基于中国人群的多心中回顾性研究,亚组分析显示辅助化疗对pT1N1M0胃癌有生存获益。大量研究表明,化疗可能改善I期GC高危患者的预后,即使包括CA19-9 升高、淋巴结阳性、阳性淋巴血管浸润、淋巴结清扫不全、结外扩展等[23]-[25],术后辅助治疗可能是改善高危pT1N1M0胃癌患者预后的合理方法。

在目前的研究中,我们发现辅助性放疗对pT1N1M0胃癌预后具有改善作用,然而不是影响早期胃癌的独立预后危险因素。有研究提出临床决策时可根据Lauren的分型及肿瘤分级推荐RT加ACT [19]。作为一种局部治疗,放射治疗还可能有一定的毒副作用。对于pT1N1M0 GC的早期胃癌患者,应尽可能减少不必要的治疗,以避免过度就医,降低治疗费用,提高生活质量。

此外,研究发现未行辅助化疗、年龄 ≥ 65、ELNC < 16以及胃底和贲门癌是pT1N1M0胃癌术后复发的危险因素。ELNC是影响早期胃癌患者OS的影响因素[26],这可能与淋巴结微转移存在有关[27]。检查更多的NLNCs可以提高潜在转移阳性淋巴结的检出率[28],ELNC应被视为提高GC患者预后评估准确性的强制性要求,增加ELNC是保证精确TNM分期的先决条件[29]。对于局部可切除的胃癌患者,NCCN Guidelines建议胃切除术检查≥16个淋巴结,本研究证实这同样适用于pT1N1M0胃癌。此外,与非贲门癌相比,贲门癌早期预后较差[30],研究发现可能与NNMT富集AQP5癌症干细胞的驱动有关[31]

不足:我们的研究有几个局限性。首先,我们的研究为回顾性分析,可能存在选择偏倚,尽管我们使用了倾向性匹配来解释这一局限性。其次,我们的研究缺乏肿瘤标志物、Hp感染检测、肿瘤标志物、脉管癌栓神经侵犯、术前影像以及手术方式治疗数据。最后,由于早期胃癌符根治性手术条件的患者相对较少,数据量明显不足,仍需更大样本的研究及前瞻性研究。

5. 结论

总之,即使是早期胃癌,术后系统的辅助治疗也能有效缓解潜在的微转移和未清除的病变。我们的结论支持pT1N1M0胃癌患者在胃切除术后至少应接受ACT治疗。

NOTES

*第一作者。

#通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Washington, K. (2010) 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Stomach. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17, 3077-3079.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1362-z
[2] Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma: 3rd English Edition. Gastric Cancer, 14, 101-112.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5
[3] Kim, S.M., An, J.Y., Lee, J., Sohn, T.S. and Kim, S. (2018) Adjuvant Chemotherapy versus Chemoradiotherapy versus Surgery Alone for Early Gastric Cancer with One or Two Lymph Node Metastasis. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 25, 1616-1624.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6434-5
[4] Wang, X. and Sun, Y. (2022) Recurrence of Early Gastric Cancer: Risk Factors and Patterns. Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery, 42, 1104-1107.
[5] Wang, H., Zhou, Y., Niu, Z., et al. (2015) The Risk Factors Relating to Prognosis and Recurrence after Curative Surgery in 539 Early Gastric Cancer Patients. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 30, 639-642.
[6] Michel, M., Stevens, L., Armstrong, G., et al. (2014) Recurrence Patterns and Prognosis after Gastrectomy for pT1 Gastric Adenocarcinoma (Early Gastric Cancer). British Journal of Surgery, 101, 39-40.
[7] Maehara, Y., Kakeji, Y., Oda, S., Baba, H. and Sugimachi, K. (2001) Tumor Growth Patterns and Biological Characteristics of Early Gastric Carcinoma. Oncology, 61, 102-112.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000055360
[8] Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2022) Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2021 (6th Edition). Gastric Cancer, 26, 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-022-01331-8
[9] Wu, Q., Jiang, J., Li, Z., Ling, X., Qiao, Z. and Ma, Y. (2024) Long-Term Survival Outcomes of Endoscopic Therapy vs. Surgical Resection in Patients with Cardia Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. PLOS ONE, 19, e0306598.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306598
[10] Lai, J.F., Kim, S., Kim, K., Li, C., Oh, S.J., Hyung, W.J., et al. (2009) Prediction of Recurrence of Early Gastric Cancer after Curative Resection. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 16, 1896-1902.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0473-x
[11] Tanimura, S., Higashino, M., Fukunaga, Y., Takemura, M., Tanaka, Y., Fujiwara, Y., et al. (2008) Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Experience with More than 600 Cases. Surgical Endoscopy, 22, 1161-1164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9786-2
[12] Yuasa, N. and Nimura, Y. (2004) Survival after Surgical Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer, Surgical Techniques, and Long-Term Survival. Langenbecks Archives of Surgery, 390, 286-293.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-004-0482-y
[13] Sasako, M., Sakuramoto, S., Katai, H., Kinoshita, T., Furukawa, H., Yamaguchi, T., et al. (2011) Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy with S-1 versus Surgery Alone in Stage II or III Gastric Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 4387-4393.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.36.5908
[14] Noh, S.H., Park, S.R., Yang, H., Chung, H.C., Chung, I., Kim, S., et al. (2014) Adjuvant Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin for Gastric Cancer after D2 Gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-Year Follow-Up of an Open-Label, Randomised Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 15, 1389-1396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70473-5
[15] Yoshida, K., Kodera, Y., Kochi, M., Ichikawa, W., Kakeji, Y., Sano, T., et al. (2019) Addition of Docetaxel to Oral Fluoropyrimidine Improves Efficacy in Patients with Stage III Gastric Cancer: Interim Analysis of JACCRO GC-07, a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37, 1296-1304.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.18.01138
[16] Park, S.H., Lim, D.H., Sohn, T.S., Lee, J., Zang, D.Y., Kim, S.T., et al. (2021) A Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Adjuvant Single-Agent S1, S-1 with Oxaliplatin, and Postoperative Chemoradiation with S-1 and Oxaliplatin in Patients with Node-Positive Gastric Cancer after D2 Resection: The ARTIST 2 Trial. Annals of Oncology, 32, 368-374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.11.017
[17] Smalley, S.R., Benedetti, J.K., Haller, D.G., Hundahl, S.A., Estes, N.C., Ajani, J.A., et al. (2012) Updated Analysis of Swog-Directed Intergroup Study 0116: A Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Radiochemotherapy versus Observation after Curative Gastric Cancer Resection. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 2327-2333.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.36.7136
[18] Hester, C.A., Augustine, M.M., Mansour, J.C., Polanco, P.M., Yopp, A.C., Zeh, H.J., et al. (2018) Adjuvant Therapy Is Associated with Improved Survival in Pt1n1 Gastric Cancer in a Heterogeneous Western Patient Population. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 26, 167-176.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6995-3
[19] Pan, S., Yin, S., Zhu, Z., Liu, F. and Xu, H. (2021) Decision-making of Adjuvant Therapy in pT1N1M0 Gastric Cancer: Should Radiotherapy Be Added to Chemotherapy? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Journal of Cancer, 12, 1179-1189.
https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.52123
[20] Mei, Y., Feng, T., Yan, M., Zhu, Z. and Zhu, Z. (2021) Is Adjuvant Chemotherapy Necessary for Early Gastric Cancer? Cancer Biology & Medicine, 19, 518-532.
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0636
[21] Chen, Q., Xiao, H., Zhang, L., You, J., Jin, Z. and Zhang, B. (2022) Association between Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Stage I Gastric Cancer Patients after Curative Resection. Gastroenterology Report, 11, goad070.
https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goad070
[22] Russo, A.E. and Strong, V.E. (2019) Gastric Cancer Etiology and Management in Asia and the West. Annual Review of Medicine, 70, 353-367.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-081117-043436
[23] Lee, I., Kang, H.J., Park, Y., Ryu, M., Yook, J., Kang, Y., et al. (2018) Prognostic Impact of Extranodal Extension in Stage 1B Gastric Carcinomas. Surgical Oncology, 27, 299-305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2018.05.014
[24] Osumi, H., Yoshio, T., Chin, K., Ogura, M., Kumekawa, Y., Suenaga, M., et al. (2015) Chemotherapy Is Effective for Stage I Gastric Cancer in Patients with Synchronous Esophageal Cancer. Gastric Cancer, 19, 625-630.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-015-0517-9
[25] Gao, X., Li, G., Deng, J., Zhao, L., Han, W., Zhang, N., et al. (2024) Association of Survival with Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Stage IB Gastric Cancer: A Multicentre, Observational, Cohort Study. The Lancet Regional HealthWestern Pacific, 45, Article ID: 101031.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101031
[26] Li, J., Cui, T., Huang, Z., Mu, Y., Yao, Y., Xu, W., et al. (2023) Analysis of Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis and Prognosis Study in Patients with Early Gastric Cancer: A SEER Data-Based Study. Frontiers in Oncology, 13, Article ID: 1062142.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1062142
[27] Huang, S., Chen, T., Hsu, J., Tsai, C., Liu, K., Yeh, C., et al. (2022) Lymph Node Micrometastasis of Poorly Differentiated Node-Negative Gastric Cancer Risks a Worse-than-Expected Survival Outcome under Standard Management Algorithm. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 48, 783-788.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2021.11.117
[28] Yamashita, H., Deng, J., Liang, H. and Seto, Y. (2017) Re-Evaluating the Prognostic Validity of the Negative to Positive Lymph Node Ratio in Node-Positive Gastric Cancer Patients. Surgery, 161, 1588-1596.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.018
[29] Deng, J., Yamashita, H., Seto, Y. and Liang, H. (2016) Increasing the Number of Examined Lymph Nodes Is a Prerequisite for Improvement in the Accurate Evaluation of Overall Survival of Node-Negative Gastric Cancer Patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 24, 745-753.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5513-8
[30] Lv, L., Liang, X., Wu, D., Wang, F., Zhang, Y., Cang, H., et al. (2021) Is Cardia Cancer a Special Type of Gastric Cancer? A Differential Analysis of Early Cardia Cancer and Non-Cardia Cancer. Journal of Cancer, 12, 2385-2394.
https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.51433
[31] Wang, Z., Wang, Q., Chen, C., Zhao, X., Wang, H., Xu, L., et al. (2023) NNMT Enriches for AQP5+ Cancer Stem Cells to Drive Malignant Progression in Early Gastric Cardia Adenocarcinoma. Gut, 73, 63-77.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328408