Prognostic significance and the role in TNM stage of extranodal metastasis within regional lymph nodes station in gastric carcinoma

The role of extranodal metastasis (ENM) in TNM stage in gastric carcinoma (GC) is controversial. This study was aimed to make a detailed investigation of the prognostic significance and the role in TNM stage of ENM in GC. The patients with primary GC, who underwent gastrectomy with curative intention in West China Hospital from January 2005 to December 2011, were retrospectively enrolled. The prognosis and clinicopathological traits were compared between ENM positive (ENMP) and negative (ENMN) groups in all patients, TNM I-II, III and IV stages, respectively. The significance of the number and the role in TNM stage of ENM were also assessed. In our study, 1457 patients were enrolled, with 1324 (90.9%) in ENMN group and 133 (9.1%) in ENMP group. ENMP group had significantly more advanced GC and worse prognosis (all p<0.05) than ENMN group in all patients, TNM I-II stages and TNM III stage. ENM>2 subgroup had remarkably larger tumor size (p=0.002) and more advanced N stage (p=0.016) than ENM=1-2 subgroup. The number of ENM was an independent prognostic factor in ENMP group (p=0.029). The prognosis of ENM>2 in TNM I-III stages was significantly worse than ENMN patients in TNM III stage. The C-index of TNM stage plus the number of ENM was significantly higher than that of current TNM stage alone (p=0.005). In conclusion, the patients in ENMP subgroup had more advanced GC and worse prognosis than those in ENMN subgroup. It might be more reasonable to categorize ENM>2 into TNM IV stage.

Extranodal metastasis is a powerful prognostic factor in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to estimate the effect of extranodal metastasis (EM) on recurrence and survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) after curative resection.

METHODS

Clinical data from 284 node-positive AEG patients who underwent curative resection were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to elucidate the effect of EM on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

EM was detected in 70 (24.6%) of the 284 cases. It had a significant correlation with tumor size, Lauren type, histopathological grading, depth of tumor invasion, number of metastatic nodes, lymph node ratio, and TNM stage. The 5-year RFS and OS rates were 22.2% and 24.3%, respectively. Patients with EM had a significantly decreased RFS (16 vs. 36 months, P < 0.001) and OS (23 vs. 41 months, P < 0.001) compared with those without EM. Multivariate analyses identified EM as an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.003 and 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The presence of EM increases recurrence probability and reduces OS probability of AEG patients with lymph node metastasis. EM is a powerful prognostic factor reflecting a particularly aggressive biological behavior. Better understanding of EM status can help clinicians with regard to treatment decision and prognosis evaluation.