Validation of two prognostic models for recurrence and survival after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1235-1243.
Published: 10th May 2017
Authors: M. Bencivenga, G. Verlato, D.‐S. Han, D. Marrelli, F. Roviello, H.‐K. Yang et al.
Prognostic models from Korea and Italy have been developed that predict overall survival and cancer recurrence respectively after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to validate the two models in independent patient cohorts, and to evaluate which factors may explain differences in prognosis between Korean and Italian patients with gastric cancer.
Patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer between January 2000 and December 2004 at Seoul National University Hospital and at eight centres in Italy were included. Discrimination of the models was tested with receiver operating characteristic (
Some 2867 and 940 patients from Korea and Italy respectively were included. The Korean nomogram achieved good discrimination in the Italian cohort (
Both prognostic models performed fairly well in independent patient cohorts. Differences in recurrence rates of gastric cancer may be partially explained by ethnicity.Read more
You may also be interested in
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Authors: C. Cosse, L. Rebibo, F. Brazier, S. Hakim, R. Delcenserie, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: Double pigtail is better
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, M. V. de Rooij, F. van Coevorden, F. E. M. Voncken, P. Snaebjornsson, H. Boot et al.
Notes: Quality of care in one number
[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
Notes: Of no use
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer.
Authors: J. A. H. Gooszen, L. Goense, S. S. Gisbertz, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen et al.
Notes: Chest lower leak rates
Meta‐analysis of metabolic surgery versus medical treatment for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BJS 2018; 105: 168-181.
Authors: A. T. Billeter, K. M. Scheurlen, P. Probst, S. Eichel, F. Nickel, S. Kopf et al.
Notes: Surgery is better
Health‐related quality of life after open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 230-236.
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, A. Johar, J. A. Gossage, A. R. Davies, J. Zylstra, J. Lagergren et al.
Notes: Favours transhiatal
Meta‐analysis of the prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype in gastric cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e61-e68.
Authors: A. G. M. T. Powell, S. Soul, A. Christian, W. G. Lewis
Notes: Heterogeneity in gene panels used
Authors: K. Boye, J.‐M. Berner, I. Hompland, Ø. S. Bruland, S. Stoldt, K. Sundby Hall et al.
Notes: Handle with care
Outcomes after prophylactic gastrectomy for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e176-e182.
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, J. P. van Kessel, J. M. van Dieren, P. Snaebjornsson, O. Balagué, F. van Coevorden et al.
Notes: Frozen section of margins is key
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier
Patient‐derived organoid models help define personalized management of gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e48-e60.
Authors: M. R. Aberle, R. A. Burkhart, H. Tiriac, S. W. M. Olde Damink, C. H. C. Dejong, D. A. Tuveson et al.
Notes: Accelerating the science of personal care