J Cancer 2020; 11(15):4421-4430. doi:10.7150/jca.41082

Research Paper

Comparison of Treatment Modalities for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Jianglong Han1*, Zhihua Nie2,3*, Ping Li1,2, Hongwei Shi1, Shijie Wang1, Qin Li1, Rui Zhang1, Yunfeng Qiao1, Kejie Huang1, Zhenming Fu1✉

1. Cancer Center, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, China
2. Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China
3. Taikang Tongji (Wuhan) Hospital, Wuhan, 430050, China
* These authors contributed equally to this work.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
Citation:
Han J, Nie Z, Li P, Shi H, Wang S, Li Q, Zhang R, Qiao Y, Huang K, Fu Z. Comparison of Treatment Modalities for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. J Cancer 2020; 11(15):4421-4430. doi:10.7150/jca.41082. Available from http://www.jcancer.org/v11p4421.htm

File import instruction

Abstract

Background: A consensus regarding optimum treatment strategies for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) has not yet been reached. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various treatment modalities for LAGC and provided clinicians salvage options under real-world situation.

Methods: Medical charts of patients with LAGC who underwent radical resection plus adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy from July 2003 to December 2014 were included. Validation cohort were selected from SEER database between 2004 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazardous models were used to evaluate the overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for potential baseline confounding.

Results: A total of 350 patients were included and divided into D1 dissection plus chemotherapy group (D1CT, n = 74), D1 dissection plus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy group (D1CRT, n = 69), D2 dissection plus adjuvant chemotherapy group (D2CT, n = 134), and D2 dissection plus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy group (D2CRT, n = 73). PSM identified 50 patients in each group. After PSM, better DFS (P for D2CRT vs. D1CT, D1CRT, and D2CT was 0.001, 0.006, and 0.001, respectively) and OS (P for D2CRT vs. D1CT, D1CRT, and D2CT was 0.001, 0.011, and 0.022, respectively) were found for the D2CRT group (mean, OS = 110.7months, DFS = 95.2 months) than the other groups. Similar findings were further validated in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER) cohort. In addition, patients in the D1CRT group achieved similar survival outcomes to those in the D2CT group (mean OS, 72.8 vs. 59.1 months, P = 0.86; mean DFS, 54.4 vs. 34.1 months, P = 0.460).

Conclusions: The results of the study indicated the better role for D2CRT in treating the LAGC, meanwhile, the patients treated with D1CRT might achieve similar survival as that of D2CT patients.

Keywords: Gastric cancer, D1 dissection, D2 dissection, Adjuvant therapy, Propensity score matching, SEER