Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 7, 2015; 21(5): 1628-1635
Published online Feb 7, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i5.1628
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the studies included
Ref.CountrySex (male/female)Age (yr)Median follow-up
Cai et al[18], 2000Japan52/27263 mea24 M
Fukagawa et al[19], 2001Japan51/18 vs 22/16357.8 ± 10.8 vs 59.8 ± 12.11 med> 36 M
Choi et al[20], 2002South Korea37/23 vs 19/9359 mea26.3 vs 25.13
Lee et al[21], 2002AustraliaNMNMNM
Yasuda et al[22], 2002Japan30/14 vs 13/73NM> 60 M
Morgagni et al[23], 2003Italy111/11968 med60 M
Yonemura et al[24], 2007Japan198/110NM83 M
Kim et al[25], 2008South Korea110/43 vs 21/10354.7 ± 10.8 vs 52.0 ± 12.51 med83 M
Ishii et al[26], 2008Japan23/1262 med57.1 M
Kim et al[27], 2009South Korea50/4055.1 ± 12.2 vs 51.6 ± 12.31 mea49 vs 47 M3
Wang et al[28], 2012China43/22 vs 74/52331.8 ± 10.9 vs 57.9 ± 13.01 mea45.6 M
Jeuck et al[29], 2015Germany51/13 vs 28/3366.3 mea56.4 vs 49.23
Table 2 Lymph node micrometastasis characteristics of the included studies
Ref.Depth of tumor invasionMethodAntibodyDefinition of micrometastasisLNs (n)AverageLNs (n)
Cai et al[18], 2000T1bIHCCK (CAM5.2)pN0 by HE staining194525.0
Fukagawa et al[19], 2001T2-T3IHCCK (AE1/AE3)pN0 by HE staining448441.9
Choi et al[20], 2002T1bIHCCK (AE1/AE3)pN0 by HE staining227225.8
Lee et al[21], 2002T1-T4IHCCK (35βH11)pN0 by HE staining362523.7
Yasuda et al[22], 2002T2-T3IHCCK (CAM5.2)pN0 by HE staining203931.9
Morgagni et al[23], 2003T1IHCCK(MNF 116)pN0 by HE staining540018.0
Yonemura et al[24], 2007T1-T4IHCCK (AE1/AE3) ≤ 0.2 mm1201239.0
Kim et al[25], 2008T1-T3IHCCK (AE1/AE3)pN0 by HE staining499027.1
Ishii et al[26], 2008T1b-T2IHCCK (O.N.352)pN0 by HE staining102829.4
Kim et al[27], 2009T1IHCCK (AE1/AE3) ≤ 2 mm352639.2
Wang et al[28], 2011T1-T3IHCCK (AE1/AE3)> 0.2 mm and ≤ 2 mm420222.0
Jeuck et al[29], 2015T1-T4IHCCK (KL1)pN0 by HE staining201821.2
Table 3 Lymph node micrometastasis positive vs negative groups
Ref.Sample(positive vs negative)Patients who died in 5 yr(positive vs negative)P value
Cai et al[18], 200069 (17 vs 52)3/17 vs 0/52< 0.01
Fukagawa et al[19], 2001107 (38 vs 69)2/38 vs 8/690.860
Choi et al[20], 200288 (28 vs 60)2/28 vs 3/600.683
Lee et al[21], 2002153 (75 vs 78)Total: 38/75 vs 19/78; EGC: 2/12 vs 0/34; AGC: 36/63 vs 19/44< 0.05
Yasuda et al[22], 200264 (20 vs 44)7/20 vs 2/44< 0.1
Morgagni et al[23], 2003300 (30 vs 270)2/30 vs 30/2700.779
Yonemura et al[24], 2007308 (37 vs 271)5/37 vs 16/2710.014
Kim et al[25], 2008184 (31 vs 153)13/31 vs 13/1531< 0.001
Ishii et al[26], 200835 (4 vs 31)--
Kim et al[27], 200990 (9 vs 81)0/9 vs 0/812-
Wang et al[28], 2011191 (54 vs 137)39/54 vs 18/137< 0.001
Jeuck et al[29], 201495 (16 vs 79)6/16 vs 21/790.026
Table 4 Recurrence rates for lymph node micrometastasis positive vs negative groups
First author, yearRecurrence (positive vs negative)
Cai et al[18], 20003/17 vs 0/52
Fukagawa et al[19], 20012/38 vs 4/65
Choi et al[20], 20022/28 vs 3/60
Morgagni et al[23], 20022/30 vs 0/270
Yonemura et al[24], 20075/37 vs 1/271
Kim et al[25], 200812/31 vs 5/153
Ishii et al[26], 20080/4 vs 0/31
Kim et al[27], 20080/9 vs 0/211