Feasibility study on expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection of intramucosal poorly differentiated early gastric cancer

Table 1 Univariate analysis of potential risk characteristics for lymph node metastasis n (%)

Factor	Number of cases with lymph node metastasis	P value
Sex
Male (n = 58)	4 (6.9)	0.421
Female (n = 23)	3 (13.0)
Age (yr)
< 60 (n = 39)	2 (5.1)	0.319
≥ 60 (n = 42)	5 (11.9)
Family history
Positive (n = 15)	3 (20.0)	0.126
Negative (n = 66)	4 (6.1)
Number of tumors
Single (n = 77)	6 (7.8)	0.305
Multitude (n = 4)	1 (25.0)
Location
Upper (n = 6)	1 (16.7)	0.247
Middle (n = 16)	3 (18.8)
Lower (n = 59)	3 (5.1)
Ulceration
Negative (n = 70)	5 (71.4)	0.284
Positive (n = 11)	2 (18.2)
Tumor size in diameter
< 2 cm (n = 59)	2 (3.4)	0.015
≥ 2 cm (n = 22)	5 ( 22.7)
Macroscopic type
I (n = 4)	1 (25.0)	0.524
II (n = 43)	4 (9.3)
III (n = 34)	2 (5.9)
Lymphatic vessel involvement
Negative (n = 67)	1 (1.5)	< 0.001
Positive (n = 14)	6 (42.9)
Signet-ring-cell component1
Absence (n = 74)	4 (5.4)	0.006
Presence (n = 7)	3 (42.9)

¹Intermingled components of signet-ring-cell cancer cells within a cancerous lesion.

Table 2 Multivariate analysis of potential risk factors for lymph node metastasis

Characteristic	OR	95%CI	P value
Tumor size	7.273	1.246-29.918	0.042
< 2 cm
≥ 2 cm
Lymphatic vessel involvement	42.219	1.923-97.052	0.018
Negative
Positive
Signet-ring-cell component	17.513	1.647-77.469	0.034
Absence
Presence

Table 3 Relationship between the number of risk factors (a tumor larger than or equal to 2.0 cm, the presence of lymphatic vessel involvement, and the presence of intermingled components of signet-ring-cell cancer cells) and lymph node metastasis in intramucosal poorly differentiated early gastric cancer

Number of risk factors	Lymph metastasis rate
None	0% (0/54)
One	9.1% (1/11)
Two	22.2% (2/9)
Three	57.1% (4/7)