Copyright
©2006 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2006; 12(24): 3883-3886
Published online Jun 28, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i24.3883
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
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i24/3883.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i24.3883