Loading…

Gastric cancer in young patients: a separate entity with aggressive features and poor prognosis

Purpose To investigate the clinicopathological features and survival outcomes between young and old patients with gastric cancer (GC), and further determine the role of young age in the prognosis of GC. Methods Patients with stage I–III gastric adenocarcinomas undergoing curative surgery were enroll...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 2020-11, Vol.146 (11), p.2937-2947
Main Authors: Cheng, Lyujia, Chen, Songyao, Wu, Wenhui, Kuo, Zi Chong, Wei, Zhewei, Meng, Sijun, Chen, Chuangqi, Zhang, Changhua, He, Yulong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To investigate the clinicopathological features and survival outcomes between young and old patients with gastric cancer (GC), and further determine the role of young age in the prognosis of GC. Methods Patients with stage I–III gastric adenocarcinomas undergoing curative surgery were enrolled, divided into young (aged 18–49 years, YG), middle-aged (50–59 years, MG), and old (≥ 60 years, OG) groups. Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy and history of malignant tumors. Clinicopathological features, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence patterns were compared among three groups. Results 1131 patients were finally included, with 270, 314, and 547 cases in the YG, MG, and OG, respectively. Compared to others, YG had higher proportion of female, middle-third gastric cancer, poor differentiation, N3b stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy. YG demonstrated poorer 5-year OS than MG (62.4% vs. 70.8%, P  = 0.019), but better than OG (62.4% vs. 58.7%, P  = 0.031). YG also suffered inferior 5-year DFS (75.2% vs. 82.8%, P  = 0.040) compared with MG, and higher incidence of peritoneal recurrence than MG (15.1% vs. 5.2%, P  
ISSN:0171-5216
1432-1335
DOI:10.1007/s00432-020-03268-w