Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Oct 15, 2018; 10(10): 360-366
Published online Oct 15, 2018. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i10.360
Table 1 Univariate analysis of potential risk characteristics for lymph node metastasis n (%)
FactorLymph node metastasis
PositiveP-value
Age (yr)
< 60 (n = 95)16 (16.8)0.494
≥ 60 (n = 43)5 (11.6)
Sex
Male (n = 87)14 (16.1)0.748
Female (n = 51)7 (13.7)
Macroscopic type
I (n = 6)0 (0)0.564
II (n = 82)12 (14.6)
III (n = 50)9 (18.0)
Family medical history
Positive (n = 11)2 (18.2)0.809
Negative (n = 127)19 (15.0)
Location
Upper (n = 29)4 (13.8)0.497
Middle (n = 8)0 (0)
Lower (n = 101)17 (16.8)
Number of tumors
Single (n = 133)20 (15.0)0.799
Multitude (n = 5)1 (20.0)
Tumor size in diameter
≤ 2 cm (n = 78)5 (6.4)0.005
> 2 cm (n = 60)16 (26.7)
Ulceration
Negative (n = 109)18 (16.5)0.474
Positive (n = 29)3 (10.3)
Lymphatic vessel involvement
Negative (n = 122)11 (9.0)< 0.001
Positive (n = 16)10 (62.5)
Depth of invasion
Mucosa (n = 83)5 (6.0)0.002
Submucosa (n = 55)16 (29.1)
Table 2 Multivariate analysis of potential risk factors for lymph node metastasis
CharactersHazard ratio95%CIP-value
Tumor size
≤ 2 cm13.4381.773-25.6730.029
> 2 cm
Lymphatic vessel involvement
Positive38.5211.975-69.2120.015
Negative
Depth of invasion
Mucosa14.9811.617-52.8440.024
Submucosa
Table 3 Association between the three identified risk factors and lymph node metastasis in poorly differentiated early gastric cancer
Number of positive risk factorsLymph metastasis rate
None0% (0/77)
One9.1% (2/26)
Two22.2% (10/21)
Three57.1% (9/14)