Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: The relative prognostic value of each lymph node (LN) station remains undefined in the treatment of gastric cancer. This study aimed to develop a new method to evaluate LN station ranking and define the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy for early gastric cancer.
Methods: Clinical and histopathological information from patients who underwent curative gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy between 1989 and 2018 was reviewed. The LN station power index (LNPI) of each station was estimated using a LN retrieval frequency and the 5-year overall survival of patients with absence of LN at each station. External validation was conducted to evaluate the relevance of the LNPI.
Results: A training set was developed from examination of 7009 patient records. For most nodal stations, the absence of LN was significantly associated with a poor prognosis. For the perigastric stations, the prognostic value assessed using the LNPI was in the following order: LN 4 (LNPI = 19.68), LN 3 (LNPI = 17.58), LN 6 (LNPI = 15.16), LN 1 (LNPI = 6.71), LN 2 (LNPI = 4.64) and LN 5 (LNPI = 2.86). The value rank of the extra-gastric stations was in the following order: LN 8a (LNPI = 12.93), LN 7 (LNPI = 10.51) and LN 9 (LNPI = 9.70), but the index of LN 12a (LNPI = 4.79) was higher than that of LN 11 (LNPI = 4.78). These trends in the LNPI were similar in the validation patient cohort.
Conclusions: The LNPI is a simple tool to rank the priority of each LN station dissection. The optimal extent of D1 + lymphadenectomy using LNPI was determined to be D1 with LNs 7, 8a and 9.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9452541 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac104 | DOI Listing |