Shen JG, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Kim J, Choi SH, Noh SH. Influence of a microscopic positive proximal margin in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma of the cardia. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(24): 3883-3886 [PMID: 16804975 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i24.3883]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Dr. Sung Hoon Noh, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 120-752, Korea. sunghoonn@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
Article-Type of This Article
Rapid Communication
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2006; 12(24): 3883-3886 Published online Jun 28, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i24.3883
Table 1 Comparison of demographic and pathologic data between patients with positive and negative margins n (%)
Variable
Positive margins (n = 16)
Negative margins (n = 175)
P value
Age (years)
49.3 ± 12.7
57.5 ± 11.2
0.006
Sex
0.161
Male
8 (50.0)
121 (69.1)
Female
8 (50.0)
54 (30.9)
Siewert type
0.141
Type II
5 (31.3)
25 (14.3)
Type III
11 (68.7)
150 (85.7)
Gross type
0.001
Borrmann I, II
1 (6.3)
83 (47.4)
Borrmann III, IV
15 (93.7)
92 (52.6)
Tumor size (cm)
0.001
≤ 5 cm
2 (12.5)
98 (56.0)
> 5 cm
14 (87.5)
77 (44.0)
Histology
0.399
Differentiated
3 (18.8)
56 (32.0)
Undifferentiated
13 (81.2)
119 (68.0)
LRM (cm)
0.985
≤2
4 (25)
42 (24.0)
> 2 and ≤ 4
10 (62.5)
113 (64.6)
> 4
2 (12.5)
20 (11.4)
Table 2 Comparison of tumor, node, metastasis classification, stage between patients with positive and negative margins n (%)
Variable
Positive margins (n = 16)
Negative margins (n = 175)
P value
Depth of tumor invasion
< 0.001
T1
0 (0)
29 (16.6)
T2
2 (12.5)
84 (48.0)
T3
11 (68.7)
55 (31.4)
T4
3 (18.8)
7 (4.0)
Node involvement
< 0.001
N0
3 (18.8)
67 (38.3)
N1
2 (12.5)
60 (34.3)
N2
2 (12.5)
26 (14.8)
N3
9 (56.2)
22 (12.6)
Stage
< 0.001
I
0 (0)
57 (32.6)
II
1 (6.3)
42 (24.0)
III
6 (37.5)
51 (29.1)
IV
9 (56.2)
25 (14.3)
Table 3 Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for a positive margin
Variable
Regression coefficient
Standard error
Odds ratio
95% CI for odds ratio
P value
Serosal invasion
2.300
0.782
9.970
2.152 - 46.196
0.003
Tumor size
1.875
0.787
6.524
1.395 - 30.512
0.017
Table 4 Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for survival
Variable
Regression coefficient
Standard error
Odds ratio
95% CI for odds ratio
P value
Gross type
-0.174
0.258
0.840
0.507 - 1.392
0.500
Tumor size
0.209
0.248
1.232
0.758 - 2.001
0.399
Serosal invasion
-0.125
0.264
0.883
0.526 - 1.481
0.637
Node involvement
0.838
0.431
2.311
0.994 - 5.374
0.052
Stage
1.469
0.389
4.344
2.028 - 9.304
< 0.001
Margin status
0.397
0.330
1.488
0.779 - 2.843
0.229
Splenectomy
0.276
0.292
1.318
0.744 - 2.337
0.344
Citation: Shen JG, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Kim J, Choi SH, Noh SH. Influence of a microscopic positive proximal margin in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma of the cardia. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(24): 3883-3886