Next Article in Journal
SLAMF7 as a Promising Immunotherapeutic Target in Multiple Myeloma Treatments
Previous Article in Journal
Capturing the True Cost of Breast Cancer Treatment: Molecular Subtype and Stage-Specific per-Case Activity-Based Costing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 30
Issue 9
10.3390/curroncol30090572
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Palliative Gastrectomy Improves the Survival of Patients with Metastatic Early-Onset Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

by
Hang An
,
Peng-Yuan Wang
and
Yu-Cun Liu
*
Department of General Surgery, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(9), 7874-7890; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090572
Submission received: 26 July 2023 / Revised: 19 August 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023 / Published: 27 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Real-Time Monitoring for Improving Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Recent studies have found that patients with incurable gastric cancer might benefit from palliative gastrectomy, but the impact of palliative gastrectomy on metastatic early-onset gastric cancer (mEOGC) patients remains unclear. Methods: We analyzed mEOGC patients enrolled in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry from January 2004 to December 2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis with 1:1 matching and the nearest-neighbor matching method were used to ensure well-balanced characteristics between the groups of patients with palliative gastrectomy and those without surgery. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and cause-specific survival (CSS) risk with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of 3641 mEOGC patients, 442 (12.1%) received palliative gastrectomy. After PSM, 596 patients were included in the analysis, with 298 in each group. For the matched cohort, the median survival was 8 months, and the 5-year survival was 4.0%. The median OS of mEOGC patients undergoing palliative gastrectomy was significantly longer than that of patients without surgery (13 months vs. 6 months, p < 0.001), and palliative gastrectomy remained an independent protective factor after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.459, 95% CI 0.382–0.552, p < 0.001), and the protective effect was robust in the subgroup analysis. Similar results were indicated in CSS. Stratified analyses by treatment modality also warranted the superiority of palliative-gastrectomy-based treatment in improving OS and CSS. Conclusions: mEOGC patients with palliative gastrectomy had a significantly longer survival time than patients without surgery. Exploratory analysis confirmed that surgery-based therapy modality was superior in improving survival time.

1. Introduction

Gastric cancer is a global health problem, with approximately one million new cases per year [1]. Despite its worldwide decline in incidence and mortality over the past 5 decades, gastric cancer remains the fourth leading cause of cancer death, accounting for an estimated 769 thousand deaths each year [1]. Approximately one-third of patients are diagnosed with distant metastases at the first clinic visit [2]. For patients with distant metastases, systemic therapy is recommended as the first line of care by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline [3]. However, despite chemotherapy and/or molecularly targeted biological therapy, the 5-year survival rate of patients with advanced gastric cancer rarely exceeds 5%, and the median survival time is usually considered to be less than one year [4,5]. More than half of patients with advanced gastric cancer will suffer from tumor-related adverse events, including gastrointestinal obstruction, intractable hemorrhage, and gastric perforation at the end stage of disease [4,6]. Emergency surgical intervention will be implemented in life-threatening conditions. For patients with mild or asymptomatic symptoms, palliative gastrectomy is also prudent because of the high postoperative morbidity and unknown survival benefits. However, with advancements in surgical technology and perioperative management, the surgical mortality rates for noncurative gastrectomy have decreased from 20% to 5% [2,4]. Recently, several studies found that patients with incurable gastric cancer might benefit from palliative gastrectomy in overall survival (OS) compared with palliative chemotherapy and supportive care [6,7,8,9,10]. However, most studies are based on retrospective data, which increases the risk of substantial selection bias when selecting candidates for palliative gastrectomy.
Epidemiological investigations have demonstrated that gastric cancer is more common in elderly individuals, with the highest incidence of reported cases occurring at 55–80 years old [11]. Thanks to the effective treatment of Helicobacter pylori and the popularization of healthy lifestyles in the elderly population over the past few decades, the proportion of traditional late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) has decreased, whereas the proportion of early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) has increased relatively by year. EOGC (≤50 years old) accounts for 4.6–12.5% of the overall gastric cancer population according to the latest research [3,12,13,14]. Mounting studies have confirmed that EOGC patients have unique clinicopathological characteristics and genetic heterogeneity when compared with LOGC patients. In contrast to those with LOGC, patients with EOGC contained a larger proportion of signet ring cell carcinoma and a higher frequency of poor differentiation [12,13,15]. The pathogenesis of EOGC has less to do with the environment but is more related to gene mutation since CDH1 and RhoA gene mutations are more universal in younger patients [16,17]. Furthermore, young patients are more likely to develop peritoneal metastasis at primary diagnosis, and the prognosis of advanced EOGC is worse than that of elderly patients, even with standard treatment [15]. The significant clinicopathological and genetic differences between EOGC and LOGC suggest that the optimal therapeutic strategy for EOGC may vary from that for LOGC. Although recent studies have investigated the effect of palliative gastrectomy on the survival of advanced gastric cancer, the majority of these studies focused on patients aged over 50 years old. The survival advantage associated with primary tumor resection for metastatic EOGC (mEOGC) is still unclear. Hence, we conducted this retrospective study based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) to explore the effect of palliative gastrectomy on the survival of metastatic EOGC patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Database and Patients

This retrospective study was based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) (Incidence—SEER Research Plus Data, 18 Registries, November 2020 Sub (2000–2018)), released in April 2021. The SEER Program is an authoritative source for cancer statistics in the United States and currently collects data on cancer incidence and survival from population-based cancer registries, covering approximately 48% of the US population [18]. We obtained access to the SEER database using the ID number 19568-Nov2021 and used SEER*Stat software (version 8.4.0.1) to extract clinicopathologic and survival information. As patient data identified from the database were deidentified and available to the public for research purposes, the ethical approval of the present study was waived by the local ethics committee.
Due to database limitations, our analysis was restricted to samples from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2018. At present, there is no specific definition for EOGC, and the cutoff age for EOGC in previous studies ranges from 30 to 50 years old [12,14,19]. Therefore, we defined EOGC patients as patients diagnosed with gastric cancer primarily before 50 years old in this study.
We enrolled patients according to the following criteria: (1) aged ≤ 50 years old; (2) diagnosed with primary gastric malignant tumor only; (3) confirmed synchronous distant metastasis at the first clinical visit; (4) confirmed epithelial carcinoma by pathological examination; (5) the status of palliative gastrectomy was known; and (6) the survival status was known. Patients were excluded if (1) surgery of the metastatic site had been performed or was unknown; (2) surgery of the primary site was reported as local tumor destruction or damage; or (3) the survival status was 0 months.
The following parameters were collected from the database: age at diagnosis, sex, race, marital status, year of diagnosis, primary site of the tumor (cardia, non-cardia, overlapping lesion of stomach or unknown), tumor differentiation grade, histology (signet ring cell carcinoma, other adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma), tumor size (≤5 cm, >5 cm or unknown), T stage unified by the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual [20], receipt of radiation, receipt of chemotherapy, overall survival (OS) in months (defined as the time interval from diagnosis to death from any cause), and cause-specific survival (CSS) in months (defined as the time interval from the diagnosis to death caused by gastric carcinoma). The receipt of surgery was defined as palliative primary tumor resection (palliative gastrectomy), including near-total or total gastrectomy and gastrectomy with a resection in continuity with the resection of other organs (RX Summ–Surg Prim Site (1998+), codes 30–33, 40–42, 50–52, 60–63, and 80). Specifically, only patients diagnosed after 2010 were assessed for synchronous metastatic patterns (including metastasis to the liver, lung, bone and brain), while the synchronous metastatic patterns of patients diagnosed before 2010 were classified as unknown. Since we enrolled patients with metastatic gastric cancer undergoing palliative tumor resection, an accurate pathological N-stage was unreliable, and the N-stage was not analyzed in this study arbitrarily.

2.2. Propensity Score Matching

Since this study was a nonrandomized retrospective study, one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the unwanted effect of treatment selection bias [21,22,23]. Propensity scores were established by a multivariable logistic regression model to calculate each patient’s probability of receiving palliative surgery, in which the dependent variable was a binary indicator. Baseline variables with a p-value < 0.05 in the univariable logistic regression model were used to generate the propensity score. Considering that there was insufficient evidence of the pathological N stage, we did not match the N stage in our study. Patients who received palliative gastrectomy were matched to those who did not receive surgery by nearest-neighbor matching without replacement, with a minimum caliper of 0.10 [24]. The balance of baseline variables was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD), which was calculated as the mean difference (MD) divided by the standard deviation (SD) before and after PSM. Characteristics were considered imbalanced if either SMD > 1.96 × ( n 1 + n 2 ) / ( n 1 × n 2 ) or p-values < 0.05 [21,25].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

For continuous variables with a normal distribution, descriptive statistics are expressed as the mean (standard deviation). For continuous variables with a non-normal distribution, descriptive statistics are expressed as the median (interquartile range). For classified variables, descriptive statistics are expressed as absolute numbers (proportions). Group comparisons of continuous variables were performed using Student’s t test or the Mann–Whitney test, while categorical variables were compared with Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. The primary endpoints of this study were OS and CSS. Correlations between various factors and the OS/CSS of mEOGC patients were assessed by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Variables with p < 0.05 in univariable analysis were adjusted as confounders in the multivariable analysis, and the results for significant prognostic factors were expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) for each category and its 95% confidence interval (CI).
Subgroup analyses of the OS and CSS between patients with or without palliative surgery were performed with stratification of age, sex, race, primary site, tumor differentiation grade, histology, tumor size, and T stage. Treatment by covariate interactions were assessed separately with Cox proportional hazards models for each subgroup factor. Furthermore, survival curves of OS and CSS of different treatment modalities (including no therapy, surgery only, radiation only, chemotherapy only, surgery + radiation, surgery + chemotherapy, radiation + chemotherapy, and surgery + radiation + chemotherapy) were developed, and comparisons between different interventions were evaluated with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models after adjusting for the confounding variables mentioned above.
All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.1.3 (www.r-project.org, accessed on 1 June 2022), and two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were assessed as statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

A total of 3641 patients with a mean age at diagnosis of 41.7 years old and a male predominance of 61.7% met our selection criteria (Table 1, Figure 1). The majority of patients with metastatic early-onset gastric cancer (mEOGC) were White (70.4%), followed by Asian or Pacific Islander (14.4%). The anatomic site of the tumor at diagnosis was mostly non-cardia (41.0%). The major pathological type of mEOGC was adenocarcinoma (95.8%), while signet ring cell carcinoma accounted for more than one-third. In addition, 64.4% of mEOGC patients were diagnosed as either poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumors. Among these patients, 442 (12.1%) patients underwent palliative gastrectomy, whereas 3199 (87.9%) patients did not, and the proportions of patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy were 17.5% and 78.4%, respectively (Table 1). For CSS, 3042 (83.5%) patients died from gastric cancer, while 599 (16.5%) patients were alive or died of other causes at the last follow-up.
The surgery group and non-surgery group had significantly different characteristics. Patients in the surgery group were more likely to have spouses (62.0% vs. 54.4%), and the proportion of Asian or Pacific Islander patients was higher (20.6% vs. 13.6%). In addition, the primary tumor in the surgery group was mostly located in the non-cardia (57.5% vs. 38.7%), and the tumor size was larger since the proportion of tumor size > 5 cm was 47.7% in the surgery group, while the proportion was 12.2% in the non-surgery group. Meanwhile, pathological examination indicated that signet ring cell carcinoma was more common in the surgery group (40.5% vs. 35.2%) (Table 1, Figure 2A). Patients in the surgery group were more likely to receive radiotherapy (23.3% vs. 16.7%) and were less likely to receive chemotherapy (73.8% vs. 79.0%) (Table 1).
To balance the baseline characteristics between the surgery and non-surgery groups, PSM analysis was conducted, and the variables used for matching were as follows: age, sex, race, marital status, year of diagnosis, primary site of the tumor, tumor size, T stage, histology, tumor differentiation grade, metastatic sites, receipt of radiation, and receipt of chemotherapy. After the PSM analysis, 596 mEOGC patients were 1:1 matched in surgery and non-surgery cohorts. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were well balanced after PSM, and the SMD between the two groups was below 0.161 (1.96 × ( n 1 + n 2 ) / ( n 1 × n 2 ) ) (Table 2, Figure 2B and Figure 3).

3.2. Survival Analysis of Palliative Gastrectomy

For the matched cohort, the median survival was 8 months, and the 5-year survival was 4.0%. In the matched cohort, patients undergoing palliative gastrectomy had a significantly longer median OS time than patients without surgery (13 months [95% CI 11–15 months] vs. 6 months [95% CI 5–7 months], p < 0.001) (Figure 4A). A similar result was demonstrated in CSS (13 months [95% CI 11–16 months] vs. 6 months [95% CI 5–7 months], p < 0.001) (Figure 4B).
A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was applied to the matched population and indicated that characteristics including year of diagnosis, primary site of tumor, histology, T stage, metastasis to the liver, metastasis to the lung, metastasis to the bone, metastasis to the brain, receipt of chemotherapy, and receipt of surgery might be related to OS and CSS. The variables mentioned above were all included in the following multivariate Cox analysis. After adjusting for these confounding factors, the receipt of palliative gastrectomy remained an independent protective factor for OS (HR 0.459, 95% CI 0.382–0.552, p < 0.001) (Table 3). In addition, receipt of chemotherapy also indicated better OS (HR 0.640, 95% CI 0.512–0.801, p < 0.001). A similar result was demonstrated in CSS (Supplemental Table S1).
Consistent with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, subgroup analysis also confirmed that patients benefited from palliative gastrectomy in improving OS and CSS (Supplemental Figures S1 and S2). Specifically, patients suffering from poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumors benefitted more from receiving palliative gastrectomy than patients with well-differentiated tumors (Supplemental Figures S1 and S2).

3.3. Impact of Treatment Modality

In the matched cohort, we stratified mEOGC patients into eight groups (no therapy, only surgery, only radiation, only chemotherapy, surgery + radiation, surgery + chemotherapy, radiation + chemotherapy, and surgery + radiation + chemotherapy) according to their treatment modality. The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis indicated that patients with surgery-based trimodality therapy (15 months, 95% CI 12–18 months) and patients with surgery combined with chemotherapy (14 months, 95% CI 10–17 months) had the longest median OS time, while patients who did not receive any therapy had the shortest median OS time (3 months, 95% CI 2–5 months) (Figure 5A). In addition, patients who only received surgery had a longer median OS time (9 months, 95% CI 6–19 months) than patients who only received chemotherapy (7 months, 95% CI 5–8 months) and patients who only received radiation (2 months, 95% CI 1–3 months) (Figure 5A). After adjusting for confounders (including year of diagnosis, primary site of tumor, histology, T stage, metastases to the liver, metastases to the lung, metastases to the bone, metastases to the brain), surgery-based treatment remained superior in improving OS (Supplemental Table S2). Similar results were also demonstrated in CSS (Figure 5B, Supplemental Table S2).

4. Discussion

In this population-based cohort study, we noticed that mEOGC patients had a remarkable survival improvement when they received palliative gastrectomy. In addition, exploratory analysis confirmed that patients who received surgery-based trimodality had the longest median OS/CSS time, indicating the superiority of palliative gastrectomy.
The utility of palliative surgery in patients with advanced gastric cancer remains the subject of intense debate. Histologically, palliative surgery was declined by surgeons due to high perioperative mortality [4]. However, along with the development of surgical techniques and perioperative care, the incidence of perioperative complications decreased, as well as that of perioperative mortality. A retrospective study of 151 patients found that patients who underwent palliative surgery to alleviate tumor-related symptoms resumed oral feeding sooner and experienced markedly fewer vomiting and gastrointestinal bleeding events than patients undergoing non-resectional procedures [26]. An increasing number of studies have demonstrated that advanced gastric cancer patients receiving palliative surgery tend to have a survival advantage over patients without any treatment or receiving palliative chemotherapy alone [9,10,27,28,29,30]. However, this superiority of palliative surgery was not corroborated by a randomized controlled trial (RCT). REGATTA was the only phase III trial that enrolled 175 advanced gastric cancer patients with a single non-curable factor. Patients included in this study were given sufficient oral intake and were free of active bleeding from the gastric tumor, while patients suffering from tumor-related symptoms such as ingestive tract obstruction, stomach perforation, and gastric hemorrhage were excluded. This trial found that there was no difference between the overall survival of patients receiving gastrectomy plus chemotherapy and patients receiving chemotherapy alone (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78–1.52; one-sided p-value = 0.70) [31]. However, this trial was criticized for its limited power because it was terminated in advance due to the futility of gastrectomy plus chemotherapy in interim analysis and poor participant accrual. In addition, this research was also criticized for enrolling numerous participants with total gastrectomy who required the administration of oral chemotherapy treatment regimens at the same time. The latter limitation might impede the periodic treatment of chemotherapy for patients receiving gastrectomy. Furthermore, this trial did not demonstrate if patients with severe tumor-related complications benefit from palliative gastrectomy.
Although several studies have been carried out to determine the effect of palliative surgery on advanced gastric cancer patients, most have focused on elderly patients. Little is known about the role of palliative surgery in mEOGC. Previous studies suggested that there was a significant clinicopathological difference between EOGC and LOGC, and the incidence of distant metastasis at diagnosis was higher for EOGC patients [32,33,34]. Furthermore, the prognosis of young individuals with advanced or unresectable gastric cancer is worse than that of elderly patients (12 months vs. 17.5 months, p < 0.001), which might be attributed to the prevalence of signet ring cell carcinoma and poor differentiation [15]. A retrospective study of 46 mEOGC patients (aged ≤ 45 years old) found that palliative surgery (HR 0.212, 95% CI 0.088–0.513, p = 0.001) was a significant prognostic predictor after adjusting for confounders [15]. However, this conclusion was not sound enough due to insufficient sample size and potential selection bias. Our study was based on the SEER database, which covers approximately 48% of the US population and involves various races, further strengthening the viability of our conclusion [18]. We used PSM to balance the baseline characteristics and mirrored the real-world outcomes. After adjusting for confounders, palliative surgery remained an independent protective factor to improve OS (HR 0.479, 95% CI, 0.397–0.576, p < 0.001) and CSS (HR 0.486, 95% CI, 0.402–0.588, p < 0.001).
The underlying mechanism of how palliative gastrectomy improves the survival outcome of mEOGC patients is still unclear. There may be several reasons for the significant survival benefits of palliative gastrectomy. First, as mentioned above, palliative gastrectomy provides symptomatic relief and reduces tumor-related complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, or obstruction in the end stage of the tumor [6]. In addition, compared with elderly patients, young patients usually have better physical performance and fewer preoperative comorbidities, so they are more tolerant of surgery and have a lower risk of perioperative complications and mortality [35,36]. Second, removing the primary site tumor can relieve the hypercatabolic state and reduce the overall tumor burden without impairing natural killer cell cytotoxicity for a long time, thereby facilitating durable systemic chemotherapy [4,37]. Some studies equally found that the addition of chemotherapy to surgery was associated with better survival, which may be attributed to a better response to chemotherapy after reduction in systemic tumor burden. Third, some previous studies discovered that primary tumor resection was associated with recovery of the immune system, leading to survival improvement. It is supposed that surgery could probably reverse systemic inflammation and restore immune function [38]. In the era of individualized treatment, palliative gastrectomy should be regarded as a part of a comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment for patients with mEOGC.
There are several limitations in our study. First, as a retrospective study, although efforts have been made to reduce selection bias by utilizing the PSM method, there may be unobserved confounders. For example, we failed to collect information about the reason for the patients’ surgery and whether this was emergency surgery. Since the prognosis of emergency surgery is worse than that of elective surgery in most cases, patients receiving emergency surgery might die within one month. However, these patients were excluded from this study, which might have exaggerated the impact of palliative gastrectomy on survival. Furthermore, the reasons that patients received palliative gastrectomy, or not, can also affect the patients’ prognosis to some extent. Second, although we balanced the baseline characteristics by performing PSM, the sample size was reduced significantly, and not every patient could be matched. Hence, the results may only be applicable to a subset of matched patients. Third, and importantly, the pattern of metastases was only restricted to the liver, lung, bone, and brain, while the status of peritoneal metastasis (PM) was not accessible. PM was also a potential factor influencing the clinical decision of surgery and postoperative recovery. Previous studies have shown that PM is an independent risk factor for prognosis, and patients with PM are recommended to receive multimodal treatment, including systemic chemotherapy, surgery, and intraperitoneal chemotherapy [39]. Fourth, the impact on quality of life (QOL) remained unclear since the SEER database did not collect corresponding information. QOL is indispensable when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of therapy, especially for metastatic gastric cancer patients. A previous study used hospitalization-free survival (HFS) as an alternative parameter to evaluate QOL, and the results showed that palliative gastrectomy might not be harmful [40].
Therefore, further studies with larger samples are needed to verify the benefit of palliative gastrectomy in terms of survival and QOL.

5. Conclusions

The present study showed that mEOGC patients receiving palliative gastrectomy had a significantly longer survival than patients without surgery. The beneficial effect remained after adjusting for confounders and was robust in the subgroup analysis. Exploratory analysis confirmed that surgery-based therapy modality was superior in improving OS and CSS. However, this retrospective cohort study did not collect the status of peritoneal metastasis, which was also a potential factor influencing the clinical decision of surgery and postoperative recovery, making the superiority of palliative gastrectomy questionable. Furthermore, the impact on the quality of life after surgery was also unknown. Thus, further well-designed studies with larger samples are needed to verify the benefit of palliative gastrectomy in terms of survival and QOL.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/curroncol30090572/s1, Table S1: Prognostic factors for cause-specific survival; Table S2: The effect of treatment modalities on overall survival and cause-specific survival; Figure S1: Forest plot predefined subgroups based on overall survival; Figure S2: Forest plot predefined subgroups based on cause-specific survival.

Author Contributions

H.A.: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, software, and writing—original draft; P.-Y.W.: data curation, methodology, visualization, and writing—review and editing; Y.-C.L.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, supervision, validation, and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This retrospective study was based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database. As this program collects data from population-based cancer registries with anonymous information and is available to the public for research purposes, the ethical approval of the present study was waived by the local ethics committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data of this study are derived from the SEER database, which is a publicly available database. All detailed data included in the study are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the SEER program for open access to their database.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, C.; Gao, Z.M.; Huang, H.B.; Li, K.; Liu, X.F. Prognostic Significance of Palliative Gastrectomy in Incurable Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2021, 25, 2299–2312. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajani, J.A.; D’Amico, T.A.; Bentrem, D.J.; Chao, J.; Cooke, D.; Corvera, C.; Das, P.; Enzinger, P.C.; Enzler, T.; Fanta, P.; et al. Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2022, 20, 167–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thrumurthy, S.G.; Chaudry, M.A.; Chau, I.; Allum, W. Does Surgery Have a Role in Managing Incurable Gastric Cancer? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 12, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, Q.; Zou, J.; Jia, M.; Li, P.; Zhang, R.; Han, J.; Huang, K.; Qiao, Y.; Xu, T.; Peng, R.; et al. Palliative Gastrectomy and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Large Population-Based Study. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2019, 10, e00048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dittmar, Y.; Rauchfuss, F.; Goetz, M.; Jandt, K.; Scheuerlein, H.; Heise, M.; Settmacher, U. Non-Curative Gastric Resection for Patients with Stage 4 Gastric Cancer—A Single Center Experience and Current Review of Literature. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2012, 397, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nakajima, T.; Ota, K.; Ishihara, S.; Oyama, S.; Nishi, M.; Ohashi, Y.; Yanagisawa, A. Combined Intensive Chemotherapy and Radical Surgery for Incurable Gastric Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 1997, 4, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kamarajah, S.K.; Markar, S.R.; Phillips, A.W.; Salti, G.I.; Dahdaleh, F.; Griffiths, E.A. Palliative Gastrectomy for Metastatic Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A National Population-Based Cohort Study. Surgery 2021, 170, 1702–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cowling, J.; Gorman, B.; Riaz, A.; Bundred, J.R.; Kamarajah, S.K.; Evans, R.P.T.; Singh, P.; Griffiths, E.A. Peri-Operative Outcomes and Survival Following Palliative Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Gastrointest. Cancer 2021, 52, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Warschkow, R.; Baechtold, M.; Leung, K.; Schmied, B.M.; Nussbaum, D.P.; Gloor, B.; Blazer Iii, D.G.; Worni, M. Selective Survival Advantage Associated with Primary Tumor Resection for Metastatic Gastric Cancer in a Western Population. Gastric Cancer 2018, 21, 324–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thrift, A.P.; El-Serag, H.B. Burden of Gastric Cancer. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ławniczak, M.; Gawin, A.; Jaroszewicz-Heigelmann, H.; Rogoza-Mateja, W.; Białek, A.; Kulig, J.; Kaczmarczyk, M.; Starzyńska, T. Analysis of Clinicopathologic Characteristics of Gastric Cancer in Patients ≤40 and ≥40 Years of Age. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 55, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Koea, J.B.; Karpeh, M.S.; Brennan, M.F. Gastric Cancer in Young Patients: Demographic, Clinicopathological, and Prognostic Factors in 92 Patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2000, 7, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bergquist, J.R.; Leiting, J.L.; Habermann, E.B.; Cleary, S.P.; Kendrick, M.L.; Smoot, R.L.; Nagorney, D.M.; Truty, M.J.; Grotz, T.E. Early-Onset Gastric Cancer Is a Distinct Disease with Worrisome Trends and Oncogenic Features. Surgery 2019, 166, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huang, Q.; Zheng, X.; Jiao, Y.; Lei, Y.; Li, X.; Bi, F.; Guo, F.; Wang, G.; Liu, M. A Distinct Clinicopathological Feature and Prognosis of Young Gastric Cancer Patients Aged ≤ 45 Years Old. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 674224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, Q.; Tao, F.; Qiu, L.; Chen, H.; Bao, H.; Wu, X.; Shao, Y.; Chi, L.; Song, H. Somatic Alteration Characteristics of Early-Onset Gastric Cancer. J. Oncol. 2022, 2022, 1498053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cho, S.Y.; Park, J.W.; Liu, Y.; Park, Y.S.; Kim, J.H.; Yang, H.; Um, H.; Ko, W.R.; Lee, B.I.; Kwon, S.Y.; et al. Sporadic Early-Onset Diffuse Gastric Cancers Have High Frequency of Somatic CDH1 Alterations, but Low Frequency of Somatic RHOA Mutations Compared with Late-Onset Cancers. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 536–549.e26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. About the SEER Program. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  19. Park, H.J.; Ahn, J.Y.; Jung, H.-Y.; Lim, H.; Lee, J.H.; Choi, K.-S.; Kim, D.H.; Choi, K.D.; Song, H.J.; Lee, G.H.; et al. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes for Gastric Cancer Patients Aged 18–30 Years. Gastric Cancer 2014, 17, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mb, A.; Fl, G.; Sb, E.; Cc, C.; Je, G.; Rk, B.; Meyer, L.; Dm, G.; Dr, B.; Dp, W. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to Build a Bridge from a Population-Based to a More “Personalized” Approach to Cancer Staging. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2017, 67, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Austin, P.C. Balance Diagnostics for Comparing the Distribution of Baseline Covariates between Treatment Groups in Propensity-Score Matched Samples. Stat. Med. 2009, 28, 3083–3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amoah, J.; Stuart, E.A.; Cosgrove, S.E.; Harris, A.D.; Han, J.H.; Lautenbach, E.; Tamma, P.D. Comparing Propensity Score Methods Versus Traditional Regression Analysis for the Evaluation of Observational Data: A Case Study Evaluating the Treatment of Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, e497–e505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Elze, M.C.; Gregson, J.; Baber, U.; Williamson, E.; Sartori, S.; Mehran, R.; Nichols, M.; Stone, G.W.; Pocock, S.J. Comparison of Propensity Score Methods and Covariate Adjustment: Evaluation in 4 Cardiovascular Studies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ouldali, N.; Toubiana, J.; Antona, D.; Javouhey, E.; Madhi, F.; Lorrot, M.; Léger, P.-L.; Galeotti, C.; Claude, C.; Wiedemann, A.; et al. Association of Intravenous Immunoglobulins Plus Methylprednisolone vs. Immunoglobulins Alone with Course of Fever in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children. JAMA 2021, 325, 855–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Takeshima, N.; Sozu, T.; Tajika, A.; Ogawa, Y.; Hayasaka, Y.; Furukawa, T.A. Which Is More Generalizable, Powerful and Interpretable in Meta-Analyses, Mean Difference or Standardized Mean Difference? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Samarasam, I.; Chandran, B.S.; Sitaram, V.; Perakath, B.; Nair, A.; Mathew, G. Palliative Gastrectomy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: Is It Worthwhile? ANZ J. Surg. 2006, 76, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. He, M.; Zhang, D.; Wang, F.; Wang, Z.; Luo, H.; Jin, Y.; Wei, X.; Xu, R. The Role of Non-Curative Surgery in Incurable, Asymptomatic Advanced Gastric Cancer. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Peng, W.; Ma, T.; Xu, H.; Wu, Z.; Wu, C.; Sun, G. Survival Benefits of Palliative Gastrectomy in Stage IV Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 11, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. He, X.; Lai, S.; Su, T.; Liu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Quan, S.; Si, J.; Sun, L. Survival Benefits of Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer Patients with Stage IV: A Population-Based Study. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 106577–106586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Omori, H.; Tanizawa, Y.; Makuuchi, R.; Irino, T.; Bando, E.; Kawamura, T.; Terashima, M. Role of Palliative Resection in Patients with Incurable Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Are Unfit for Chemotherapy. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fujitani, K.; Yang, H.-K.; Mizusawa, J.; Kim, Y.-W.; Terashima, M.; Han, S.-U.; Iwasaki, Y.; Hyung, W.J.; Takagane, A.; Park, D.J.; et al. Gastrectomy plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Advanced Gastric Cancer with a Single Non-Curable Factor (REGATTA): A Phase 3, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhou, Q.-P.; Ge, Y.-H.; Liu, C.-Y. Comparison of Metastasis between Early-Onset and Late-Onset Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Theuer, C.P.; Kurosaki, T.; Taylor, T.H.; Anton-Culver, H. Unique Features of Gastric Carcinoma in the Young: A Population-Based Analysis. Cancer 1998, 83, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qu, X.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, N.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, X.; Dong, Q.; Liu, J.; Shi, Y. The Clinicopathological Characteristics of Early-Onset Gastric Cancer and Its Evolutionary Trends: A Retrospective Study. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2022, 12, 2757–2769. [Google Scholar]
  35. Seib, C.D.; Rochefort, H.; Chomsky-Higgins, K.; Gosnell, J.E.; Suh, I.; Shen, W.T.; Duh, Q.-Y.; Finlayson, E. Association of Patient Frailty with Increased Morbidity After Common Ambulatory General Surgery Operations. JAMA Surg. 2018, 153, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Froehner, M.; Brausi, M.A.; Herr, H.W.; Muto, G.; Studer, U.E. Complications Following Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer in the Elderly. Eur. Urol. 2009, 56, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pollock, R.E.; Roth, J.A. Cancer-Induced Immunosuppression: Implications for Therapy? Semin. Surg. Oncol. 1989, 5, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hsu, J.-T.; Liao, J.-A.; Chuang, H.-C.; Chen, T.-D.; Chen, T.-H.; Kuo, C.-J.; Lin, C.-J.; Chou, W.-C.; Yeh, T.-S.; Jan, Y.-Y. Palliative Gastrectomy Is Beneficial in Selected Cases of Metastatic Gastric Cancer. BMC Palliat. Care 2017, 16, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Coccolini, F.; Cotte, E.; Glehen, O.; Lotti, M.; Poiasina, E.; Catena, F.; Yonemura, Y.; Ansaloni, L. Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 40, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chang, Y.R.; Han, D.S.; Kong, S.-H.; Lee, H.-J.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, W.H.; Yang, H.-K. The Value of Palliative Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer with Distant Metastasis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Curroncol 30 00572 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart. SEER = Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.
Figure 1. Flowchart. SEER = Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.
Curroncol 30 00572 g001
Curroncol 30 00572 g002
Figure 2. (A) Mirror histograms before matching. (B) Mirror histograms after matching.
Figure 2. (A) Mirror histograms before matching. (B) Mirror histograms after matching.
Curroncol 30 00572 g002
Curroncol 30 00572 g003
Figure 3. Standardized mean differences before and after matching.
Figure 3. Standardized mean differences before and after matching.
Curroncol 30 00572 g003
Curroncol 30 00572 g004
Figure 4. (A) Overall survival of patients with and without surgery. (B) Cause-specific survival of patients with and without surgery.
Figure 4. (A) Overall survival of patients with and without surgery. (B) Cause-specific survival of patients with and without surgery.
Curroncol 30 00572 g004
Curroncol 30 00572 g005
Figure 5. (A) The impact of treatment modalities on overall survival. (B) The impact of treatment modalities on cause-specific survival.
Figure 5. (A) The impact of treatment modalities on overall survival. (B) The impact of treatment modalities on cause-specific survival.
Curroncol 30 00572 g005
Table 1. Baseline data in the unmatched cohort.
Table 1. Baseline data in the unmatched cohort.
Overall (n = 3641)Non-Surgery (n = 3199)Surgery (n = 442)p-ValueStandardized Mean Difference
Age, year41.7 ± 7.141.6 ± 7.141.9 ± 6.70.4830.036
Sex 0.6880.023
 Female1395 (38.3%)1230 (38.4%)165 (37.3%)
 Male2246 (61.7%)1969 (61.6%)277 (62.7%)
Race <0.0010.225
 White2564 (70.4%)2283 (71.4%)281 (63.6%)
 Black461 (12.7%)397 (12.4%)64 (14.5%)
 American Indian/Alaska Native70 (1.9%)66 (2.1%)4 (0.9%)
 Asian or Pacific Islander526 (14.4%)435 (13.6%)91 (20.6%)
 Unknown20 (0.5%)18 (0.6%)2 (0.5%)
Marital status 0.0210.161
 Married2013 (55.3%)1739 (54.4%)274 (62.0%)
 Single1157 (31.8%)1042 (32.6%)115 (26.0%)
 Divorced/Widowed/Separated321 (8.8%)285 (8.9%)36 (8.1%)
 Unknown150 (4.1%)133 (4.2%)17 (3.8%)
Year of diagnosis2011 (2007, 2015)2011 (2007, 2015)2009 (2005, 2013)<0.0010.401
Primary site <0.0010.493
 Cardia955 (26.2%)901 (28.2%)54 (12.2%)
 Non-cardia1491 (41.0%)1237 (38.7%)254 (57.5%)
 Overlapping lesion of stomach419 (11.5%)355 (11.1%)64 (14.5%)
 Unknown776 (21.3%)706 (22.1%)70 (15.8%)
Tumor size <0.0011.172
 ≤5 cm644 (17.7%)512 (16.0%)132 (29.9%)
 >5 cm602 (16.5%)391 (12.2%)211 (47.7%)
 Unknown 2395 (65.8%)2296 (71.8%)99 (22.4%)
T stage <0.0011.507
 T1/ T2660 (18.1%)637 (19.9%)23 (5.2%)
 T3/ T41423 (39.1%)1024 (32.0%)399 (90.3%)
 Tx1558 (42.8%)1538 (48.1%)20 (4.5%)
N stage <0.0011.472
 N01120 (30.8%)1068 (33.4%)52 (11.8%)
 N11208 (33.2%)1062 (33.2%)146 (33.0%)
 N2221 (6.1%)94 (2.9%)127 (28.7%)
 N3168 (4.6%)64 (2.0%)104 (23.5%)
 Nx924 (25.4%)911 (28.5%)13 (2.9%)
Histology 0.0380.134
 Signet ring cell carcinoma1306 (35.9%)1127 (35.2%)179 (40.5%)
 Other adenocarcinoma2181 (59.9%)1930 (60.3%)251 (56.8%)
 Non-adenocarcinoma154 (4.2%)142 (4.4%)12 (2.7%)
Tumor differentiation grade
 I/II405 (11.1%)357 (11.2)48 (10.9)<0.0010.490
 III/IV2343 (64.4%)1988 (62.1)355 (80.3)
 Unknown893 (24.5%)854 (26.7)39 (8.8)
Metastasis to the liver a <0.0010.426
 Yes655 (18.0%)625 (19.5%)30 (6.8%)
 No1483 (40.7%)1312 (41.0%)171 (38.7%)
 Unknown1503 (41.3%)1262 (39.4%)241 (54.5%)
Metastasis to the lung a <0.0010.404
 Yes265 (7.3%)259 (8.1%)6 (1.4%)
 No1859 (51.1%)1665 (52.0%)194 (43.9%)
 Unknown1517 (41.7%)1275 (39.9%)242 (54.8%)
Metastasis to the bone a <0.0010.454
 Yes361 (9.9%)354 (11.1%)7 (1.6%)
 No1774 (48.7%)1580 (49.4%)194 (43.9%)
 Unknown1506 (41.4%)1265 (39.5%)241 (54.5%)
Metastasis to the brain a <0.0010.313
 Yes39 (1.1%)38 (1.2%)1 (0.2%)
 No2088 (57.3%)1888 (59.0%)200 (45.2%)
 Unknown1514 (41.6%)1273 (39.8%)241 (54.5%)
Radiation <0.0010.165
 Yes638 (17.5%)535 (16.7%)103 (23.3%)
 No3003 (82.5%)2664 (83.3%)339 (76.7%)
Chemotherapy 0.0140.124
 Yes2853 (78.4%)2527 (79.0%)326 (73.8%)
 No788 (21.6%)672 (21.0%)116 (26.2%)
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, n (%), or median (interquartile range). Standardized mean difference > 0.161 or two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered imbalanced between the two groups and expressed in bold. a The site of metastasis was only accessible for patients diagnosed after 2010, while the site of metastasis of patients diagnosed before 2010 was recorded as unknown.
Table 2. Baseline data in the propensity score matched cohort.
Table 2. Baseline data in the propensity score matched cohort.
Overall (n = 596)Non-Surgery (n = 298)Surgery (n = 298)p-ValueStandardized Mean Difference
Age, year41.8 ± 6.741.7 ± 6.641.8 ± 6.80.7650.025
Sex 0.3570.082
 Female236 (39.6%)124 (41.6%)112 (37.6%)
 Male 360 (60.4%)174 (58.4%)186 (62.4%)
Race 0.9820.052
 White392 (65.8%)194 (65.1%)198 (66.4%)
 Black79 (13.3%)40 (13.4%)39 (13.1%)
 American Indian/Alaska Native7 (1.2%)4 (1.3%)3 (1.0%)
 Asian or Pacific Islander113 (19.0%)57 (19.1%)56 (18.8%)
 Unknown5 (0.8%)3 (1.0%)2 (0.7%)
Marital status 0.9940.024
 Married357 (59.9%)178 (59.7%)179 (60.1%)
 Single165 (27.7%)83 (27.9%)82 (27.5%)
 Divorced/Widowed/Separated57 (9.6%)29 (9.7%)28 (9.4%)
 Unknown17 (2.9%)8 (2.7%)9 (3.0%)
Year of diagnosis 2009 (2006, 2014)2010 (2006, 2014)2009 (2006, 2013)0.5480.053
Primary site 0.7790.086
 Cardia100 (16.8%)46 (15.4%)54 (18.1%)
 Non-cardia315 (52.9%)158 (53.0%)157 (52.7%)
 Overlapping lesion of stomach82 (13.8%)44 (14.8%)38 (12.8%)
 Unknown99 (16.6%)50 (16.8%)49 (16.4%)
Tumor size 0.9810.016
 ≤5 cm174 (29.2%)87 (29.2%)87 (29.2%)
 >5 cm226 (37.9%)114 (38.3%)112 (37.6%)
 Unknown 196 (32.9%)97 (32.6%)99 (33.2%)
T stage 0.6800.072
 T1/ T243 (7.2%)20 (6.7%)23 (7.7%)
 T3/ T4508 (85.2%)253 (84.9%)255 (85.6%)
 Tx45 (7.6%)25 (8.4%)20 (6.7%)
N stage <0.0011.119
 N0139 (23.3%)98 (32.9%)41 (13.8%)
 N1220 (36.9%)116 (38.9%)104 (34.9%)
 N294 (15.8%)15 (5.0%)79 (26.5%)
 N370 (11.7%)8 (2.7%)62 (20.8%)
 Nx73 (12.2%)61 (20.5%)12 (4.0%)
Histology 0.4100.110
 Signet ring cell carcinoma242 (40.6%)120 (40.3%)122 (40.9%)
 Other adenocarcinoma325 (54.5%)160 (53.7%)165 (55.4%)
 Non-adenocarcinoma29 (4.9%)18 (6.0%)11 (3.7%)
Tumor differentiation grade 0.6590.075
 I/II72 (12.1%)33 (11.1%)39 (13.1%)
 III/IV449 (75.3%)225 (75.5%)224 (75.2%)
 Unknown75 (12.6%)40 (13.4%)35 (11.7%)
Metastasis to the liver a 0.9890.012
 Yes55 (9.2%)28 (9.4%)27 (9.1%)
 No230 (38.6%)115 (38.6%)115 (38.6%)
 Unknown311 (52.2%)155 (52.0%)156 (52.3%)
Metastasis to the lung a 0.9860.014
 Yes12 (2.0%)6 (2.0%)6 (2.0%)
 No272 (45.6%)137 (46.0%)135 (45.3%)
 Unknown312 (52.3%)155 (52.0%)157 (52.7%)
Metastasis to the bone a 0.9860.014
 Yes14 (2.3%)7 (2.3%)7 (2.3%)
 No272 (45.6%)137 (46.0%)135 (45.3%)
 Unknown310 (52.0%)154 (51.7%)156 (52.3%)
Metastasis to the brain a 0.8450.048
 Yes3 (0.5%)2 (0.7%)1 (0.3%)
 No282 (47.3%)141 (47.3%)141 (47.3%)
 Unknown311 (52.2%)155 (52.0%)156 (52.3%)
Radiotherapy >0.9990.008
 Yes139 (23.3%)69 (23.2%)70 (23.5%)
 No457 (76.7%)229 (76.8%)228 (76.5%)
Chemotherapy 0.2380.105
 Yes463 (77.7%)238 (79.9%)225 (75.5%)
 No133 (22.3%)60 (20.1%)73 (24.5%)
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, n (%), or median (interquartile range). a The site of metastasis was only accessible for patients diagnosed after 2010, while the site of metastasis of patients diagnosed before 2010 was recorded as unknown.
Table 3. Prognostic factors for overall survival.
Table 3. Prognostic factors for overall survival.
VariableUnivariable Cox Regression AnalysisMultivariable Cox Regression Analysis a
Hazard Ratio95% CIp-ValueHazard Ratio95% CIp-Value
Age, year1.0000.987–1.0130.981
Male sex0.9150.767–1.0920.326
Race
 Whitereference
 Black0.9560.745–1.2290.727
 American Indian/Alaska Native1.4450.683–3.0560.335
 Asian or Pacific Islander0.8520.675–1.0740.174
 Unknown0.5600.179–1.7520.319
Marital status
 Marriedreference
 Single0.8400.686–1.0270.090
 Divorced/Widowed/Separated0.8390.621–1.1350.254
 Unknown1.0180.615–1.6830.946
Year of diagnosis 0.9720.951–0.9930.0080.9800.940–1.0230.355
Primary site
 Cardiareference reference
 Non-cardia 1.4241.112–1.8230.0051.3491.031–1.7660.029
 Overlapping lesion of stomach1.5171.099–2.0930.0111.3810.982–1.9420.064
 Unknown1.5991.182–2.1640.0021.4731.066–2.0370.019
Tumor differentiation grade
 I/IIreference reference
 III/IV1.2910.986–1.6900.063
 Unknown0.9960.685–1.4480.983
Histology
 Signet ring cell carcinomareference reference
 Other adenocarcinoma0.8100.678–0.9690.0210.8540.706–1.0310.101
 Non-adenocarcinoma0.5860.370–0.9270.0220.5790.355–0.9420.028
Tumor size
 ≤5 cmreference
 >5 cm1.0630.862–1.3120.568
 Unknown 1.1150.893–1.3910.336
T stage
 T1/ T2reference reference
 T3/ T41.4211.005–2.0080.0471.3460.947–1.9150.098
 Tx1.4460.909–2.3000.1201.5470.965–2.4800.070
Metastasis to the liver b
 Noreference reference
 Yes1.1460.822–1.5980.4201.1330.791–1.6230.496
 Unknown1.2981.079–1.5620.0061.0560.108–10.3320.963
Metastasis to the lung b
 Noreference reference
 Yes1.9331.024–3.6470.0423.2281.634–6.3780.001
 Unknown1.3021.091–1.5530.0032.1330.301–15.1030.448
Metastasis to the bone b
 Noreference reference
 Yes1.7691.030–3.0380.0391.9181.099–3.3480.022
 Unknown1.2991.088–1.5510.0040.7030.068–7.3160.768
Metastasis to the brain b
 Noreference reference
 Yes4.6281.473–14.5420.0094.5171.404–14.5380.011
 Unknown1.2771.072–1.5210.0060.6750.093–4.9030.698
Receipt of radiation
 Noreference
 Yes0.9110.745–1.1140.366
Receipt of chemotherapy
 Noreference reference
 Yes0.7270.591–0.8940.0030.6400.512–0.801<0.001
Receipt of surgery
 Noreference reference
 Yes0.4940.414–0.590<0.0010.4590.382–0.552<0.001
CI = confidence interval. p-values in bold indicate < 0.05 and are considered as statistically significant. a Confounding factors (including year of diagnosis, primary site, histology, T stage, metastasis to the liver, metastasis to the lung, metastasis to the bone, metastasis to the brain, receipt of chemotherapy, receipt of surgery) were adjusted in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. b The site of metastasis was only accessible for patients diagnosed after 2010, while the site of metastasis of patients diagnosed before 2010 was recorded as unknown.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

An, H.; Wang, P.-Y.; Liu, Y.-C. Palliative Gastrectomy Improves the Survival of Patients with Metastatic Early-Onset Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 7874-7890. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090572

AMA Style

An H, Wang P-Y, Liu Y-C. Palliative Gastrectomy Improves the Survival of Patients with Metastatic Early-Onset Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Current Oncology. 2023; 30(9):7874-7890. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090572

Chicago/Turabian Style

An, Hang, Peng-Yuan Wang, and Yu-Cun Liu. 2023. "Palliative Gastrectomy Improves the Survival of Patients with Metastatic Early-Onset Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study" Current Oncology 30, no. 9: 7874-7890. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090572

APA Style

An, H., Wang, P. -Y., & Liu, Y. -C. (2023). Palliative Gastrectomy Improves the Survival of Patients with Metastatic Early-Onset Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Current Oncology, 30(9), 7874-7890. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090572

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop