Gender and Age Differences in Risk Factors of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients With Early Gastric Cancer and Analysis Prognosis of Early Gastric Cancer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-104733/v1

Abstract

Objective

To explore the effects of gender and age differences in the risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients and analysis prognosis of patients of early gastric cancer (EGC).

Methods

A total of 411 patients with EGC who underwent surgical treatment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from 2011 to 2017 were included in this study and grouped according to gender and age. Retrospective analysis of the effects of gender and age on tumor size, histological type, depth of invasion, and ulcer type was performed, and differences in the clinicopathological characteristics of lymphovascular invasion were noted. Follow-up of the postoperative recurrence and metastasis of the patients and analysis of their prognosis were finally conducted. All follow-ups ended in August 2020.

Result

The participants in this study ranged in age from 25 years to 85 years (average, 60.27 ± 10.77 years). A total of 57 (13.9%) of the patients showed lymph node metastasis. Females accounted for 25.5% (105/411) while males accounted for 74.5% (306/411) of the study population. Patients aged ≤60 years accounted for 55.5% (228/411) while patients aged >60 years accounted for 44.5% (183/411) of the study population. Univariate analysis of male patients showed that tumor size, depth of tumor invasion, ulcerative tumors, and lymphovascular invasion are related to lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis of female patients showed that tumor size, depth of tumor invasion, tumor histology, and lymphovascular invasion are related to lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis of patients aged ≤60 years showed that depth of tumor invasion, ulcerative tumors, and lymphovascular invasion are related to lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis of patients aged >60 years showed that depth of tumor invasion, ulcerative tumors, and lymphovascular invasion are related to lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis of male patients, female patients, and patients aged ≤60 years showed that depth of tumor invasion is an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis. Multivariate analysis of patients aged >60 years showed that depth of tumor invasion, ulcerative tumors, and lymphovascular invasion are independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis.

Conclusion

The risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients with EGC differed according to gender and age. The results provide a reference for choosing suitable treatment options for these patients.

Introduction

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in the world. Among malignant cancers, gastric cancer ranks fifth in terms of incidence and third in terms of mortality. Thus, the disease seriously affects patients’ lives and health[1]. In early gastric cancer (EGC), the tumor is confined to the mucosal or submucosal layer, and it is not limited to whether there is lymph node metastasis[2]. At present, the diagnosis rate of early gastric cancer (EGC) in China is less than 10%, which is much lower than the rates recorded in Japan (70%) and South Korea (50%)[3, 4]. Previous reports indicated that the five-year survival rates of EGC without and with lymph node metastasis are 94.2% and 87.3%, respectively[5]. In view of the good prognosis of EGC, clarifying the prognostic factors related to the disease, especially the risk factors affecting lymph node metastasis, is an important endeavor. Studies have reported several risk factors for EGC lymph node metastasis, including depth of tumor invasion, tumor size, ulcerative tumors, and undifferentiated tumors[6-9]. However, reports on the effects of age and gender on the risk factors for EGC lymph node metastasis are limited. Endoscopic treatment is the standard treatment plan for EGC without lymph node metastasis[10, 11]. According to the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer in Japan, treatment of EGC by endoscopic resection is indicated when the depth of invasion is T1a, the tumor is of the non-ulcerative type, and the diameter of the tumor does not exceed 2 cm[12]. Clarifying the risk factors for EGC lymph node metastasis, particularly the effects of age and gender on these factors, can help clinicians develop optimal treatment plans for patients with EGC.

Materials And Methods

A total of 411 patients with EGC underwent radical surgical resection at the General Surgery Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from 2011 to 2017. Radical surgery is defined as the complete removal of the tumor, no macroscopic residual tumor, no cancer cell invasion at the margins, and no evidence of distant metastasis. The patients were followed-up by professional medical staff via telephone, visitation, or reviews of their consultation records at the outpatient department. Patient survival time was considered as the time from diagnosis to the time of last contact or date of death or date of survival information collection. EGC patients were grouped according to age and gender, and the following risk factors for lymph node metastasis were assessed: (1) Tumor size: The longest diameter of the lesion was measured by pathology after surgery, and multiple tumors are calculated by the largest long diameter. Divided into ≤2 cm and >2 cm. (2) Tumors were divided into the ulcerative, ulcerative scarring, and non-ulcerative types. (3) With or without lymphovascular invasion. (4) Tumor differentiation was divided into differentiated (moderate–high and moderate differentiation) and undifferentiated (poor–moderate and poor differentiation, mixed, mucinous adenocarcinoma, and signet ring cell carcinoma). (5) Postoperative pathology: depth of invasion (mucosa and submucosa).

Statistical methods: The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 statistical software. The chi-squared test (single-factor analysis) was used to analyze the risk factors for lymph node metastasis. Variables found to be related to lymph node metastasis during single-factor analysis (P<0.05) were included in binary logistic regression analysis. Survival data were analyzed by K-M and Cox survival regression analyses to determine the impact of the related risk factors on patient prognosis. P values were considered statistically significant at the level of <0.05.

Results

Analysis of the demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of ECG patients: A total of 411 patients were included in this retrospective study; 57 (13.9%) patients had postoperative pathological evidence of lymph node metastasis. The study population included 105 (25.5%) females, 16 of whom showed lymph node metastasis after surgery, and 306 (74.5%) males, 41 of whom showed lymph node metastasis after surgery. Among the 411 patients with EGC, 183 (44.5%) were aged ≤60 years, and 25 of them had lymph node metastasis. The rest of the patients (228, 55.5%) were aged >60 years old, and 32 of them patients had lymph node metastasis.

Factor analysis of lymph node metastasis in EGC patients of different genders: Univariate analysis (Table 1) showed that lymph node metastasis in male EGC is related to tumor size, depth of tumor invasion, tumor ulceration, and lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.05). Lymph node metastasis in female EGC was related to tumor size, tumor invasion depth, tumor histological type, and lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.05). Factors with statistical significance were included in multivariate logistic regression analysis, and the results indicated that depth of tumor invasion is an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis in male (p = 0.02, OR = 0.213, 95%CI: 0.079–0.575) and female (p = 0.033, OR = 10.524, 95%CI: 1.213–91.295) patients with EGC (Table 3).

Factor analysis of lymph node metastasis in EGC patients of different ages: Univariate analysis (Table 2) showed that lymph node metastasis of EGC patients aged ≤60 years is related to depth of tumor invasion, tumor ulceration, and lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.05). Lymph node metastasis of EGC patients aged >60 years was related to tumor size, tumor invasion depth, and lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.05). Factors with statistical significance were included in multiple logistic regression analysis, and results revealed that depth of tumor invasion (p = 0.04, OR = 20.008, 95%CI: 2.592–154.421) is an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis in EGC patients aged ≤60 years. Moreover, tumor size (p = 0.012, OR = 3.094, 95%CI: 1.288–7.429), depth of tumor invasion (p = 0.019, OR = 3.408, 95%CI: 1.223–9.494), and lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.000, OR = 0.075, 95%CI: 0.018–0.311) are independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis in EGC patients aged >60 years (Table 4).

Survival analysis results of EGC patients: The whole group of 411 patients with EGC received complete follow-up. Cox survival regression analysis was applied to the factors affecting the prognosis of EGC, and results showed that lymph node metastasis (p = 0.043, OR = 1.960, 95%CI: 1.022–3.758), age (p = 0.000, OR = 0.289, 95%CI: 0.147–0.567), and vascular infiltration (p = 0.046, OR = 2.637, 95%CI: 1.016–6.845) are independent risk factors affecting patient prognosis (Table 5). The survival curve of the patients clearly showed that lymph node metastasis, vascular invasion, and age are independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with EGC (Figures 1、2、3).

Discussion

Previous studies indicated that lymph node metastasis is one of the main factors affecting the prognosis of gastric cancer[13]. However reports on the effects of gender and age on the risk factors related to lymph node metastasis are scarce. Earlier studies showed that the lymph node metastasis rate of EGC is between 10% and 15%[14, 15]. The rate of lymph node metastasis in EGC patients in this study was 13.9%. Some studies indicate that the risk factors for lymph node metastasis in EGC include tumor invasion depth, tumor size, ulcerative tumors, and undifferentiated tumors[6-9]. Related reports also confirm that tumors measuring >2 cm are risk factors for EGC lymph node metastasis[16, 17]. However, these studies did not show differences in these factors in EGC patients according to age and gender. Our study found that when tumors > 2 cm are a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in both male and female patients.It is for EGC age ≤ 60 years,we also found that tumors measuring >2 cm are not a risk factor for patients with lymph node metastasis. Yusuke et al. found that ulcerative tumors are a risk factor for EGC lymph node metastasis[18]. Our study also confirmed this finding but noted differences according to age. Ulcerative tumors are only a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in male patients and patients ≤60 years of age. Some researchers have found that undifferentiated tumors are a risk factor for EGC lymph node metastasis[19-21]. However, other reports indicate that the histological type of tumors is not an independent risk factor for EGC lymph node metastasis[22]. Our study found that undifferentiated tumors are a risk factor for lymph node metastasis only in female patients. Therefore, further research is necessary to explore whether undifferentiated tumors affect EGC lymph node metastasis. Earlier studies revealed that submucosal infiltration of tumors is the most predictive risk factor for EGC lymph node metastasis[23]. In the present study, the lymph node metastasis rates of patients with EGC showing intramucosal infiltration and submucosal infiltration were 2.3% and 22.5%, respectively, similar to the results of a large number of previous studies[24-26]. The aim of this study from the univariate and multivariate analysis also confirmed the different ages and different sex submucosal tumor infiltrating lymph node metastasis in EGC are risk factors, clinicians in the face of EGC patients submucosal invasion need to be more careful with. Some reports show that lymphovascular invasion is a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in EGC[27], similar to the results of our study. This finding suggests that lymphovascular invasion is a factor that cannot be ignored for EGC lymph node metastasis. Takatsu et al. showed that young patients with EGC are more likely to have lymph node metastasis than older patients and that age is an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis[18]. However, some studies also show that age is not a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in EGC[28]. Our study did not find differences in lymph node metastasis between patients of different ages with EGC. Whether age is a risk factor for EGC lymph node metastasis requires further study. A number of researchers have found that female sex is an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis in EGC. The estrogen signaling pathway in women affects the generation and development of breast cancer and endometrial cancer; it has also been shown to affect the occurrence and development of gastric cancer[6, 29, 30]. Our research did not find that gender affects the lymph node metastasis of EGC. Whether gender affects EGC lymph node metastasis must be assessed in other studies.

Our analysis showed that lymph node metastasis, age, and tumor invasion are the main prognostic factors for patients with EGC. Lymph nodes metastasis are one of the main prognostic factors for EGC[13], as confirmed in our current research and analysis. Age is an important prognostic factors for many cancers[31]. Song et al. demonstrated that the prognosis of gastric cancer varies with age and that the survival rate of young patients with gastric cancer is usually higher than that of elderly patients[32]. Our research confirms the findings of previous research, which may be attributed to two factors. First, younger patients may have better tolerance to surgery and subsequent chemotherapy than older patients. Second, younger patients may have better physical conditions and be able to recover faster than older patients. Some researchers have reported that submucosal infiltration is an independent prognostic factor for patients with EGC[33]; this finding is similar to the results of our research. Our study found that submucosal invasion is a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in patients of different genders and ages with EGC. Increases in depth of tumor invasion appear to increase the risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with EGC.

Endoscopic technology has developed rapidly in recent years, and today’s endoscopic operations are low cost, safe, and have little impact on the quality of life of patients. However, lymph node metastasis is a contraindication to EMR(Endoscopic Mucosal Resection)and ESD(Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection). In this case, additional radical surgery may be required resection and lymph node dissection. Therefore, clinicians must accurately assess the presence of lymph node metastasis prior to surgery to be able to select the best treatment plan for patients with EGC. Understanding the risk factors for lymph node metastasis in these patients is of great guiding significance for clinical work. According to gastric cancer diagnosis and treatment guidelines in Japan, endoscopic resection is indicated for EGC treatment when the depth of invasion is T1a, the tumor is not ulcerated, and the diameter of the tumor does not exceed 2 cm[12]. These guidelines, however, do not consider differences in patients of different genders and ages with EGC. We found that the risk factors for lymph node metastasis in EGC differ according to patient gender and age. In view of these differences, our findings may serve as a reference for clinicians choosing treatment options for their patients. The results of our prognostic analysis suggest that age, lymph node metastasis, and tumor submucosal infiltration are the main prognostic factors for patients with EGC. While the current research presents a number of limitations and shortcomings, future research may be expected to provide patients with more reasonable treatment plans.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. And written informed consent was obtained from the patient.

Funding

Natural Foundation of Anhui Province (No.2008085MH294)

Author Contributions

Jingjing Wang and Tao Meng composed the manuscript and literature review; Ke Chen and Zhengguang Wang had final approval of the version to be published, and agreemento be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Ethical considerations

This research was permitted by the Ethical Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysis during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (NO: 2008085MH294). The funders had no role in study design,data collection and analysis,manuscript preparation,or submission for publication. All those named as authors have made a sufficient contribution to the final manuscript for submission. All authors declare no conflict of interest, and agree on consent to be listed as coauthors.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424.
  2. Sano T, Aiko T. New Japanese classifications and treatment guidelines for gastric cancer: revision concepts and major revised points. Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 97-100.
  3. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66: 115-132.
  4. Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, Chen W. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2013. Chin J Cancer 2017; 36: 66.
  5. Noh SH, Hyung WJ, Cheong JH. Minimally invasive treatment for gastric cancer: approaches and selection process. J Surg Oncol 2005; 90: 188-193; discussion 193-184.
  6. Suh DD, Oh ST, Yook JH et al. Differences in the prognosis of early gastric cancer according to sex and age. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017; 10: 219-229.
  7. Guo CG, Zhao DB, Liu Q, Zhou ZX, Zhao P, Wang GQ, Cai JQ. A nomogram to predict lymph node metastasis in patients with early gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2017 Feb 14;8(7):12203-12210. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.14660. PMID: 28099943; PMCID: PMC5355337..
  8. Zhao X, Cai A, Xi H et al. Predictive Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Undifferentiated Early Gastric Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21: 700-711.
  9. Kook MC. Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Undifferentiated-Type Gastric Carcinoma. Clin Endosc 2019; 52: 15-20.
  10. Kim SG. Endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 2011; 11: 146-154.
  11. Soetikno R, Kaltenbach T, Yeh R, Gotoda T. Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4490-4498.
  12. Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2020.
  13. Kim BS, Oh ST, Yook JH, Kim BS. Signet ring cell type and other histologic types: differing clinical course and prognosis in T1 gastric cancer. Surgery 2014; 155: 1030-1035.
  14. Roviello F, Rossi S, Marrelli D et al. Number of lymph node metastases and its prognostic significance in early gastric cancer: a multicenter Italian study. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94: 275-280; discussion 274.
  15. Pelz J, Merkel S, Horbach T et al. Determination of nodal status and treatment in early gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30: 935-941.
  16. Sekiguchi M, Oda I, Taniguchi H et al. Risk stratification and predictive risk-scoring model for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer. J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 961-970.
  17. Hirasawa T, Gotoda T, Miyata S et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis and the feasibility of endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2009; 12: 148-152.
  18. Takatsu Y, Hiki N, Nunobe S et al. Clinicopathological features of gastric cancer in young patients. Gastric Cancer 2016; 19: 472-478.
  19. Zhao BW, Chen YM, Jiang SS et al. Lymph Node Metastasis, a Unique Independent Prognostic Factor in Early Gastric Cancer. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0129531.
  20. Wang Y. The predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: A clinical study. Pak J Med Sci 2015; 31: 1437-1440.
  21. Borie F, Millat B, Fingerhut A, Hay JM, Fagniez PL, De Saxce B. Lymphatic involvement in early gastric cancer: prevalence and prognosis in France. Arch Surg. 2000 Oct;135(10):1218-23. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135.10.1218. PMID: 11030885.
  22. Nakahara K, Tsuruta O, Tateishi H, Arima N, Takeda J, Toyonaga A, Sata M. Extended indication criteria for endoscopic mucosal resection of early gastric cancer with special reference to lymph node metastasis--examination by multivariate analysis. Kurume Med J. 2004;51(1):9-14. doi: 10.2739/kurumemedj.51.9. PMID: 15150895.
  23. Park DJ, Lee HK, Lee HJ, Lee HS, Kim WH, Yang HK, Lee KU, Choe KJ. Lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer with submucosal invasion: feasibility of minimally invasive surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2004 Dec 15;10(24):3549-52. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i24.3549. PMID: 15534904; PMCID: PMC4611990.
  24. Park JH, Lee SH, Park JM et al. Prediction of the indication criteria for endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 11160-11167.
  25. Lai JF, Xu WN, Noh SH, Lu WQ. Effect of World Health Organization (WHO) Histological Classification on Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence in Early Gastric Cancer. Med Sci Monit 2016; 22: 3147-3153.
  26. Wang Z, Ma L, Zhang XM, Zhou ZX. Risk of lymph node metastases from early gastric cancer in relation to depth of invasion: experience in a single institution. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 5371-5375.
  27. Fang C, Shi J, Sun Q et al. Risk factors of lymph node metastasis in early gastric carcinomas diagnosed by WHO criteria in 379 Chinese patients. J Dig Dis 2016; 17: 526-537.
  28. Hsieh FJ, Wang YC, Hsu JT et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients aged 40 years or younger. J Surg Oncol 2012; 105: 304-309.
  29. Nilsson, S et al. “Mechanisms of estrogen action.” Physiological reviewsvol. 81,4 (2001): 1535-65. doi:10.1152/physrev.2001.81.4.1535.
  30. Ryu ES, Chang SJ, An J et al. Sex-specific differences in risk factors of lymph node metastasis in patients with early gastric cancer. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0224019.
  31. Li Q, Cai G, Li D et al. Better long-term survival in young patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer after surgery, an analysis of 69,835 patients in SEER database. PLoS One 2014; 9: e93756.
  32. Song P, Wu L, Jiang B, Liu Z, Cao K, Guan W. Age-specific effects on the prognosis after surgery for gastric cancer: A SEER population-based analysis. Oncotarget. 2016 Jul 26;7(30):48614-48624. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.9548. PMID: 27224925; PMCID: PMC5217043..
  33. Pacelli F, Doglietto GB, Alfieri S et al. Survival in early gastric cancer: multivariate analysis on 72 consecutive cases. Hepatogastroenterology 1999; 46: 1223-1228.

Tables

Table1Univariate analysis of positive lymph node metastasis in men and women with EGC

Characteristics

Male

Female

Number of cases

Lymph node metastasis

X2

P

Number of cases

Lymph node metastasis

X2

P

Age

   

0.001

0.978

   

0.026

0.871

≦60

120

16

   

61

9

   

>60

186

25

   

44

7

   

Tumor size

   

5.084

0.024

   

8.666

0.003

≦2cm

162

15

   

67

5

   

>2cm

144

26

   

38

11

   

Depth of invasion

   

_

0.000a

   

_

0.000a

Mucosa(T1a)

123

2

   

52

1

   

Submucosa(T1b)

183

39

   

53

15

   

Histology

   

0.570

0.450

   

_

0.047a

Differentiated-type

166

20

   

37

2

   

Undifferentiated-type

140

21

   

68

14

   

Ulcerative type

   

17.047

0.000

   

1.668

0.197

Yes

118

27

   

41

8

   

No

188

14

   

74

8

   

Lymphovascular invasion

   

19.348

0.000

   

5.954

0.015a

Yes

10

6

   

6

3

   

No

296

35

   

99

86

   

a:Fisher’s excar probability method was used

Table2Univariate analysis of positive lymph node metastasis in patients with EGC at different ages

Characteristics

≦60

>60

Number of cases

Lymph node metastasis

X2

P

Number of cases

Lymph node metastasis

X2

P

sex

   

0.093

0.761

   

0.159

0.690

Male

122

16

   

184

25

   

Female

61

9

   

44

7

   

Tumor size

   

2.497

0.114

   

10.348

0.01

≦2cm

107

11

   

124

9

   

>2cm

76

14

   

104

23

   

Depth of invasion

   

_

0.000a

   

_

0.000a

Mucosa(T1a)

81

0

   

94

3

   

Submucosa(T1b)

102

25

   

134

29

   

Histology

   

2.018

0.155

   

1.298

0.255

Differentiated-type

75

7

   

128

15

   

Undifferentiated-type

108

18

   

100

17

   

Ulcerative

   

7.745

0.005

   

7.010

0.08

Yes

71

16

   

87

19

   

No

112

9

   

141

13

   

Lymphovascular invasion

   

_

0.019a

   

15.720

0.001

Yes

5

3

   

11

5

   

No

178

22

   

217

26

   

a:Fisher’s excar probability method was used

Table3Analysis of lymph node metastasis according to sex using a logistic regression model

Characteristics

Male

Characteristics

Female

Odds ratio(95%CI)

P

Odds ratio(95%CI)

P

Ulcerative type

   

Histology

   

Yes

1.768(0.865-3.617)

0.118

Differentiated-type

1

0.202

No

1

 

Undifferentiated-type

3.097(0.546-17.577)

 

Depth of invasion

   

Depth of invasion

   

Mucosa(T1a)

0.213(0.079-0.575)

0.02

Mucosa(T1a)

1

0.033

Submucosa(T1b)

1

 

Submucosa(T1b)

10.524(1.213-91.295)

 

Lymphovascular invasion

   

Lymphovascular

invasion

   

Yes

6.957(1.719-28.166)

0.07

Yes

1

0.079

No

1

 

No

0.164(0.022-1.236)

 

Tumor size

   

Tumor size

   

≦2cm

0.602(0.297-1.220)

0.159

≦2cm

1

0.125

>2cm

1

 

>2cm

3.259(0.722-14.717)

 

Table4Analysis of lymph node metastasis using a logistic regression model according to age.

Characteristics

≦60

Characteristics

>60

Odds ratio(95%CI)

P

Odds ratio(95%CI)

P

Ulcerative type

   

Tumor size

   

Yes

1

0.404

≦2cm

1

0.012

No

0.673(0.265-1.706)

 

>2cm

3.094(1.288-7.429)

 

Depth of invasion

   

Depth of invasion

   

Mucosa(T1a)

1

0.04

Mucosa(T1a)

1

0.019

Submucosa(T1b)

20.008(2.592-154.421)

 

Submucosa(T1b)

3.408(1.223-9.494)

 

Lymphovascular invasion

   

Vascular invasion

   

Yes

1

0.07

Yes

1

0.000

No

0.464(0.071-3.025)

 

No

0.075(0.018-0.311)

 

Table5Multivariate analysis of factors influencing survival using a cox proportional hazards model.

Characteristics

Odds ratio(95%CI)

P

Age

   

≦60

0.289(0.147-0.567)

0.000

>60

1

 

Lymph node metastasis

   

Yes

1.960(1.022-3.758)

0.043

No

1

 

Lymphovascular invasion

   

Yes

1

0.675

No

0.675(0.365-1.249)

 

Sex

   

Female

1.193(0.600-2.370)

0.614

Male

1

 

Depth of invasion

   

Mucosa(T1a)

1

0.046

Submucosa(T1b)

2.637(1.016-6.845)

 

Histology

   

Differentiated-type

1

0.362

Undifferentiated-type

1.293(0.744-2.245)

 

Tumor size

   

≦2cm

0.875(0.504-1.521)

0.637

>2cm

1

 

Ulcerative type

   

Yes

1

0.244

No

0.706(0.393-1.269)