Prognostic effect of CEA, AFP, CA19‑9 and CA242 for recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer following radical gastrectomy
- Authors:
- Published online on: December 12, 2024 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2024.2812
- Article Number: 17
-
Copyright: © Luan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide, and mortality and morbidity rates are continuing to increase. Notably, the incidence of gastric cancer ranks fifth among malignant tumors, and the mortality rate is third highest, following lung and liver cancer (1-7). Radical surgery combined with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy has demonstrated potential in the treatment of gastric cancer; however, the five-year survival rate of patients remains low. The five-year survival rate of patients with advanced gastric cancer is <20% (8).
Gastric cancer exhibits high levels of heterogeneity, and is associated with a poor prognosis and low rates of survival. At present, targeted therapies for advanced gastric cancer include anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, and research is focused on the use of CLDN18.2 as a potential treatment option. Notably, first-line treatment includes immunotherapy, and peri-operative clinical trials are ongoing. However, immunotherapy exhibits numerous limitations, including inconsistent treatment responses, drug resistance and treatment-associated adverse events (9-11). Thus, further investigations are required to optimize current immunotherapeutic regimens and improve the effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer.
Tumor recurrence and metastasis are the main causes of death following radical gastrectomy. Novel, non-invasive, inexpensive treatment options using serum tumor markers are required for early detection and intervention, following the recurrence or metastasis of gastric cancer (12-15).
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a glycoprotein located in the gastrointestinal mucosal epithelia, while carbohydrate antigen (CA) is expressed at the carbohydrate sites of high-molecular weight mucins. Notably, both CEA and CA bind to the integrin family, mediating calcium-independent intercellular adhesion. The mechanisms underlying CEA and CA are comparable to the mechanisms underlying tumor invasion and metastasis (16,17). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a glycoprotein belonging to the albumin family. AFP is closely associated with the occurrence and development of liver cancer and a variety of tumors, such as gastric, pancreatic, lung and colorectal cancer. AFP is used as a positive detection index for a variety of tumors (18), and results of a previous study revealed that AFP is significantly elevated in patients with AFP-positive gastric cancer (19). Notably, both CA19-9 and CA242 are key markers of gastric cancer (20), and these proteins, along with CEA and AFP, are routinely measured following radical gastrectomy.
Numerous previous studies assessed pre-operative serum tumor marker levels as risk factors for recurrence or metastasis (21,22); however, these studies did not focus on post-operative serum tumor marker levels. Notably, few studies investigated the association between post-operative positive tumor markers and recurrence or metastasis (23,24). Thus, early detection and timely intervention may improve the survival rate of patients with recurrence or metastasis of gastric cancer, following radical resection.
The present study aimed to determine the predictive value of CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 for recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer following radical resection, to aid in early intervention and the treatment of patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the curve (AUC) and univariate and multivariate analyses were used for the present study.
Materials and methods
Patients
The present study was approved (approval no. 20240651) by the Ethical Institutional Review Committee of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (Zhejiang, China). Patient informed consent was waived by the ethics committee as the present study is retrospective. Patients with stage I-III gastric cancer admitted to The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2016 to September 2018 were enrolled in the present study. Patients were included in the present study according to the following criteria: i) Gastric cancer confirmed via gastroscopic pathology or surgical pathology; ii) a history of radical surgical resection, open or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DG), proximal gastrectomy (PG) or total gastrectomy (TG); iii) serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels detected prior to surgery; and iv) complete medical records. Patients were excluded from the present study according to the following criteria: i) The presence of gastric stump cancer; ii) the presence of severe infection; iii) the presence of other malignant tumors; iv) pregnancy or breastfeeding; v) no history of radical resection; vi) a history of neoadjuvant therapy; and vii) incomplete follow-up data.
According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 368 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled in the present study, including 236 men and 132 women (age, 25-87 years). According to the TNM staging criteria of the Union of International Cancer Control and the American Joint Committee on Cancer, there were 152 patients with stage I disease, 115 patients with stage II disease and 101 patients with stage III disease. Patients included in the present study were evaluated for CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels at least once within 1 month prior to gastrectomy, and levels were evaluated 6 to 12 months following surgery. CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels of >5 ng/ml, >20 ng/ml, >37 U/ml and 20 U/ml, respectively, were considered positive prior to surgery (24-27). Post-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels that exceeded the healthy range were considered positive. Recurrence and metastasis were evaluated using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US), positron Emission Tomography-CT (PET-CT) and puncture biopsy pathology.
Clinical features, such as age, pathological stage and post-operative adjuvant therapy were evaluated in 368 patients with gastric cancer. Following radical gastrectomy, all patients were followed up via outpatient or telephone follow-up for a period of 5 years, and follow-up ended in November 2023. Regular abdominal B-ultrasonography, CT, MRI, tumor marker, routine blood and PET-CT examinations were performed, and death or the end of follow-up were considered the end point of the investigation. The recurrence and metastasis of all patients with gastric cancer were analyzed, and patients were divided into recurrence/metastasis and non-recurrence/metastasis groups. Clinical characteristics, such as sex, age, depth of invasion, and CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels were compared between the two groups.
Statistical analysis
All data were statistically analyzed using GraphPad Prism (version, 9.1.1; GraphPad Software, Inc.). Data are presented as the number of cases and rate (%). Measurement data with normal distribution and homogeneity of variance are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (x̄ ± s). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism, and Fisher's exact test and multiple logistic regression were used, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC). Levels of sensitivity and specificity were used to evaluate the predictive value of CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 in the post-operative recurrence or metastasis of gastric cancer. ROC curves were calculated using the R package (version 1.18.5). Kaplan-Meier survival (followed by a log-rank test) was analyzed using the R package survival (version 3.5; https://github.com/therneau/survival). P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Clinical characteristics of patients with gastric cancer
The median age of 368 patients with gastric cancer was 60 years. Among them, 236 patients were male (64%) and 132 patients were female (36%). According to the tumor differentiation grade, 19 cases were high, 16 cases were high-moderate, 70 cases were moderate, 89 cases were moderate-low and 174 cases were low grade. Open surgery was performed in 64% of patients, and 26% of patients underwent TG. Notably, lymph node dissection was D2 in 99% of the patients. In total, 152 patients exhibited stage I disease (41%), 115 patients exhibited stage II disease (31%) and 101 patients exhibited stage III disease (28%). In addition, 63% of patients underwent post-operative adjuvant therapy. In total, 34 (9%) patients were positive for CEA, 4 (1%) patients were positive for AFP, 39 (11%) patients were positive for CA19-9 and 23 (6%) patients were positive for CA242. At the end of follow-up, 68/368 patients exhibited recurrence/metastasis, and 300/368 patients did not experience recurrence/metastasis, with a recurrence/metastasis rate of 18% (Table I).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of post-operative recurrence/metastasis in patients with gastric cancer
All patients with gastric cancer were divided into recurrence/metastasis (n=68) and non-recurrence/metastasis groups (n=300). Results of the univariate analysis revealed no significant difference in age, sex, lymph node dissection, pre-operative CEA levels and pre-operative AFP levels between patients with recurrence/metastasis and those with non-recurrence/metastasis. Notably, age ≥70, open surgery, TG, disease stage III, pre-operative CA19-9 positivity and pre-operative CA242 positivity were risk factors for recurrence/metastasis (Table II). Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that approach of operation was a risk factor for recurrence/metastasis. In addition, disease stage II and III were risk factors for recurrence/metastasis, compared with disease stage I (Table III).
Predictive value of post-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels for the recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer
Results of the ROC curve analysis revealed that the AUC values of pre-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels in the prediction of recurrence/metastasis were 0.517, 0.513, 0.513 and 0.499, respectively (Fig. 1 and Table IV). The AUC values of post-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels in the prediction of recurrence/metastasis were 0.608, 0.493, 0.630 and 0.568, respectively (Fig. 2 and Table IV). Notably, the AUC values of post-operative CA19-9 levels were higher than CEA, AFP and CA242.
 | Table IVEvaluation value of CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 in postoperative recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer. |
Comparison of cumulative survival rate between patients with positive or negative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels
Cumulative survival was compared between patients with positive pre-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels and patients with negative pre-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels. Results of the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that patients with negative pre-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels exhibited a higher five-year survival rate than patients with positive pre-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels. In addition, patients with positive pre-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels exhibited a significantly worse prognosis than those with negative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels. Notably, the differences between positive and negative pre-operative CA19-9 and CA242 levels were statistically significant (Fig. 3). The results of the present study also revealed that patients with positive post-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels exhibited a poorer five-year survival rate than patients with negative post-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels. Notably, these patients also exhibited a significantly worse prognosis. However, there was no statistically significant difference between positive and negative post-operative AFP, CA19-9 or CA242 levels. The results of the present study revealed that the difference between positive and negative post-operative CEA levels were statistically significant (Fig. 4).
Discussion
Serum tumor markers are substances that are synthesized by cells, and these are increased when the body responds to tumor cells. Levels of serum tumor markers are low in healthy tissues; however, these are significantly increased in the serum of patients with tumors.
The results of the present study revealed that serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels in patients with recurrence/metastasis were significantly higher than those in patients with non-recurrence/metastasis, suggesting that serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 may be associated with post-operative recurrence/metastasis in patients with gastric cancer. In addition, results of the univariate analysis demonstrated that open surgery, age ≥70, total gastrectomy, disease stage III, pre-operative CA19-9 positivity and pre-operative CA242 positivity were risk factors for recurrence/metastasis. However, these factors were not statistically significant between patients who were positive and negative for pre-operative CEA and AFP. Notably, there were no statistically significant differences in sex and lymph node dissection between patients with recurrence/metastasis and those with non-recurrence/metastasis. Of the 368 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy, only two patients underwent D1 or D1+ lymph node dissection, and the remaining patients underwent D2 lymph node dissection.
The results of the multivariate logistic analysis revealed that approach of operation was a risk factor for recurrence/metastasis. Compared with disease stage I, disease stages II and III were also risk factors for recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer. Notably, these results were consistent with those of previous studies and results obtained in clinical practice (14,28,29).
ROC curve analysis was also used to further determine the predictive value of CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels in post-operative recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer. The results of the present study revealed that the AUC values of pre-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels were 0.517, 0.513, 0.513 and 0.499, respectively. These results suggested that pre-operative CEA levels exhibited a high predictive value for post-operative recurrence/metastasis in patients with gastric cancer. The AUC values of post-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels were 0.608, 0.493, 0.630 and 0.568, respectively. These results suggested that CA19-9 may exhibit the highest potential in predicting post-operative recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer. Notably, these results were comparable with those of previous studies (30,31).
Cumulative survival was also compared between patients with negative pre-operative and post-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels, and those with positive levels of these markers. The results of the present study indicated that patients with positive pre- or post-operative CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels exhibited a poorer five-year survival rate than patients with negative levels of these markers. Moreover, prognosis was significantly worse in patients with positive pre- and post-operative serum CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 levels, compared with patients with negative levels of these markers. Previous studies revealed that elevated serum CEA and CA19-9 levels are associated with the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (14,24,32). In the present study, elevated serum CA242 levels were also associated with the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer.
The present study provides a novel theoretical basis for the use CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 as tumor markers for the prediction of tumor recurrence and metastasis following radical gastrectomy. Thus, these serum tumor markers may exhibit potential in predicting tumor recurrence and metastasis following surgery, when combined with ctDNA. Further investigations should focus on the optimization of evaluating CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 in combination, to determine the optimal combination of tumor markers for the prediction of recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer following radical surgery.
Collectively, the results of the present study indicated that CEA, AFP, CA19-9 and CA242 exhibited potential in the prediction of recurrence/metastasis following radical gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Notably, CA19-9 and CA242 may exhibit the highest potential in predicting recurrence/metastasis. In addition, patients enrolled in the present study had undergone radical gastrectomy, and the majority of patients with elevated AFP levels presented with advanced stages of disease. Thus, patients with elevated AFP levels may have presented with liver metastases that could not be surgically resected, and were therefore not included in the present study. Thus, the present study included fewer patients with positive AFP levels, which may have led to bias.
The AUC value in the ROC curve in the present study is close to 0.5, which means that the model is weak in distinguishing between positive and negative samples. Although the results were statistically significant, the actual predictive power of the model was weak and may not have sufficient clinical significance. The importance of the results should not be overstated in the absence of sufficient differentiation. Future studies need to optimize the model and improve its prediction accuracy.
The present study used a retrospective design, which does introduce data selection bias and other potential confounding factors. Retrospective design limits the ability of causal inference and may affect the reliability of the results. Future studies need to consider multivariate analyses that include more potential confounding factors. Another limitation is our relatively small sample size, which may affect the statistical power of the study and the external validity of the results. Potential errors that can result from a small sample size. In future studies, the authors consider conducting a prospective cohort study with a larger sample size to validate our findings.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: The present study was supported by Zhejiang Co-construction Project (grant no. WKJ-ZJ-2310), the Zhejiang Health Commission Project (grant no. 2022KY790), the Natural Science foundation of Zhejiang (grant no. LY19H160042) and the National natural science foundation of China (grant no. 81301889).
Availability of data and materials
The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.
Authors' contributions
FL, KeC, GC and JC contributed to study conception and design. FL, SX, KaiC and MK prepared materials, and performed data collection and analysis. FL wrote the manuscript. All authors commented on the manuscript. GC and JC confirm the authenticity of all the raw data, supervised the research and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The present study was approved (approval no. 20240651) by the Institutional Review Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (Hangzhou, China) and was conducted in strict accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Patient informed consent was waived by the ethics committee as the present study is retrospective.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
|
Rocken C: Predictive biomarkers in gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 149:467–481. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 68:394–424. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Luan F, Li X, Cheng X, Huangfu L, Han J, Guo T, Du H, Wen X and Ji J: TNFRSF11B activates Wnt/β-catenin signaling and promotes gastric cancer progression. Int J Biol Sci. 16:1956–1971. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Bentrem DJ, Chao J, Cooke D, Corvera C, Das P, Enzinger PC, Enzler T, Fanta P, et al: Gastric cancer, version 2.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 20:167–192. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC and Lordick F: Gastric cancer. Lancet. 396:635–648. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rihawi K, Ricci AD, Rizzo A, Brocchi S, Marasco G, Pastore LV, Llimpe FLR, Golfieri R and Renzulli M: Tumor-associated macrophages and inflammatory microenvironment in gastric cancer: Novel translational implications. Int J Mol Sci. 22(3805)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ricci AD, Rizzo A and Brandi G: DNA damage response alterations in gastric cancer: Knocking down a new wall. Future Oncol. 17:865–868. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zong L, Abe M, Seto Y and Ji J: The challenge of screening for early gastric cancer in China. Lancet. 388(2606)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Guven DC, Erul E, Kaygusuz Y, Akagunduz B, Kilickap S, De Luca R and Rizzo A: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hearing loss: A systematic review and analysis of individual patient data. Support Care Cancer. 31(624)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rizzo A, Santoni M, Mollica V, Logullo F, Rosellini M, Marchetti A, Faloppi L, Battelli N and Massari F: Peripheral neuropathy and headache in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy and immuno-oncology combinations: The MOUSEION-02 study. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 17:1455–1466. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hadfield MJ, Mistry H, Pelcovits A, Bansal R, Andrea S, Chergui A, Ramphal K, Austin M and Khurshid H: Risk factors for immunotherapy-related adverse events (IrAE) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Am J Clin Oncol. 46:183–184. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fujiya K, Tokunaga M, Makuuchi R, Nishiwaki N, Omori H, Takagi W, Hirata F, Hikage M, Tanizawa Y, Bando E, et al: Early detection of nonperitoneal recurrence may contribute to survival benefit after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 20 (Suppl 1):S141–S149. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Park JS, Choe EA, Park S, Nam CM, Hyung WJ, Noh SH, Lee S, Kim HS, Jung M, Chung HC and Rha SY: Detection of asymptomatic recurrence improves survival of gastric cancer patients. Cancer Med. 10:3249–3260. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Shibata C, Nakano T, Yasumoto A, Mitamura A, Sawada K, Ogawa H, Miura T, Ise I, Takami K, Yamamoto K and Katayose Y: Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer. BMC Surg. 22(213)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zheng CY, Wu J, Chen CS, Huang ZN, Tang YH, Qiu WW, He QC, Lin GS, Chen QY, Lu J, et al: A scoring model for predicting early recurrence of gastric cancer with normal preoperative tumor markers: A multicenter study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 49(107094)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Passos I, Stefanidou E, Meditskou-Eythymiadou S, Mironidou-Tzouveleki M, Manaki V, Magra V, Laskou S, Mantalovas S, Pantea S, Kesisoglou I and Sapalidis K: A review of the significance in measuring preoperative and postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) values in patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). Medicina (Kaunas). 57(609)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hammarström S: The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) family: Structures, suggested functions and expression in normal and malignant tissues. Semin Cancer Biol. 9:67–81. 1999.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Sun W, Liu Y, Shou D, Sun Q, Shi J, Chen L, Liang T and Gong W: AFP (alpha fetoprotein): Who are you in gastrology? Cancer Lett. 357:43–46. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kamiimabeppu D, Wakatsuki T, Takahari D, Fukuda N, Shimozaki K, Osumi H, Nakayama I, Ogura M, Ooki A, Shinozaki E, et al: Treatment efficacy of ramucirumab-containing chemotherapy in patients with alpha-fetoprotein producing gastric cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 28:121–129. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kawahara K, Makino H, Kametaka H, Hoshino I, Fukada T, Seike K, Kawasaki Y and Otsuka M: Outcomes of surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastases: A retrospective analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 18(41)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Mihmanli M, Dilege E, Demir U, Coskun H, Eroglu T and Uysalol MD: The use of tumor markers as predictors of prognosis in gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 51:1544–1547. 2004.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Nakajima K, Ochiai T, Suzuki T, Shimada H, Hayashi H, Yasumoto A, Takeda A, Hishikawa E and Isono K: Impact of preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19-9 and alpha fetoprotein levels in gastric cancer patients. Tumour Biol. 19:464–469. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Moyer S: Pharmacokinetics of naproxen sodium. Cephalalgia. 6 (Suppl 4):S77–S80. 1986.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kochi M, Fujii M, Kanamori N, Kaiga T, Kawakami T, Aizaki K, Kasahara M, Mochizuki F, Kasakura Y and Yamagata M: Evaluation of serum CEA and CA19-9 levels as prognostic factors in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 3:177–186. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Suenaga Y, Kanda M, Ito S, Mochizuki Y, Teramoto H, Ishigure K, Murai T, Asada T, Ishiyama A, Matsushita H, et al: Prognostic significance of perioperative tumor marker levels in stage II/III gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 11:17–27. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wakatsuki K, Matsumoto S, Migita K, Kunishige T, Nakade H, Miyao S and Sho M: Risk factors and risk scores for predicting early recurrence after curative gastrectomy in patients with stage III gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 24:1758–1769. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yagi S, Kumagai K, Nunobe S, Ishizuka N, Yamaguchi T, Imai Y, Tsuda M, Haruta S, Fukunaga H, Yamada T and Goto M: Risk factors for early recurrence after radical gastrectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II or III gastric cancer: A multicenter, retrospective study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 54:403–415. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Nobre KEL, Pereira MA, Ramos MFKP, Ribeiro U, Zilberstein B, Cecconello I and Dias AR: Recurrence in PN0 gastric cancer: Risk factors in the occident. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 34(e1562)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Jeong SA, Yook JH, Yoo MW, Kim BS, Lee IS, Kim S, Gong CS and Ko CS: Analysis of risk factors affecting long-term survival in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. Aging Clin Exp Res. 35:2211–2218. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ma X, Zhou X, Guo J, Feng X, Zhao M, Zhang P, Zhang C, Gong S, Wu N, Zhang Y, et al: CA19-9 is a significant prognostic factor in stage III gastric cancer patients undergoing radical gastrectomy. BMC Surg. 24(31)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
You W, Cai Z, Sheng N, Yan L, Wan H, Wang Y, Ouyang J, Xie L, Wu X and Wang Z: Construction and validation of convenient clinicopathologic signatures for predicting the prognosis of stage I-III gastric cancer. Front Oncol. 12(848783)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kodera Y, Yamamura Y, Torii A, Uesaka K, Hirai T, Yasui K, Morimoto T, Kato T and Kito T: The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 91:49–53. 1996.PubMed/NCBI |
