Currently, there is still controversy on postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for node-negative advanced gastric cancer. Herein, we sought to evaluate the role of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and pathological characteristics of 363 node-negative advanced gastric cancer patients in our hospital from 1996 to 2007 who underwent gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy. We compared the survival rate of the surgery-only group with that of the adjuvant chemotherapy treatment group. The 5-year survival rates of patients in the surgery-only group and the chemotherapy treatment group were 70.7% and 73.8%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the survival rate between patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy and patients not receiving chemotherapy ( P = 0.328 ). However, postoperative chemotherapy treatment significantly increased the survival rate of pT4aN0M0 patients ( P = 0.020 ), although it did not exert a direct effect on the survival rate in pT2N0M0 and pT3N0M0 patients ( P = 0.990 and P = 0.895 ). We also summarized and analyzed the side effects and safety of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The rate of chemotherapy-related adverse events was 79.9%. Although 61 (36.1%) patients had to adjust their chemotherapy dose, no patient died from side effects. In conclusion, postoperative chemotherapy treatment is safe but did not show a direct impact on the survival rate of the node-negative advanced gastric cancer patients. However, pT4aN0M0 patients can benefit from postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy after undergoing D2 radical resections.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnifying endoscopy (ME) reliably determine indications for endoscopic resection in patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). ME is widely accepted for predicting the invasion depth of superficial esophageal cancer with satisfying accuracy. However, the addition of EUS is controversial. AIM To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ME vs EUS for invasion depth prediction and investigate the influencing factors in patients with SESCC to determine the best diagnostic model in China. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed patients with suspected SESCC who completed both ME and EUS and then underwent endoscopic or surgical resection at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center between January 2018 and December 2021. We evaluated and compared the diagnostic efficiency of EUS and ME according to histological results, and investigated the influencing factors. RESULTS We included 152 lesions from 144 patients in this study. The diagnostic accuracies of ME and EUS in differentiating invasion depth were not significantly different (73.0% and 66.4%, P = 0.24); both demonstrated moderate consistency with the pathological results (ME: kappa = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.68, P < 0.01; EUS: kappa = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.34-0.57, P < 0.01). ME was significantly more accurate in the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial (HGIN) or carcinoma in situ (odds ratio [OR] = 3.62, 95%CI: 1.43-9.16, P = 0.007) subgroups. Using a miniature probe rather than conventional EUS can improve the accuracy of lesion depth determination (82.3% vs 49.3%, P < 0.01). Less than a quarter of circumferential occupation and application of a miniature probe were independent risk factors for the accuracy of tumor invasion depth as assessed by EUS (< 1/4 circumferential occupation: OR = 3.07, 95%CI: 1.04-9.10; application of a miniature probe: OR = 5.28, 95%CI: 2.41-11.59, P < 0.01). Of the 41 lesions (41/152, 27.0%) that were misdiagnosed by ME, 24 were corrected by EUS (24/41, 58.5%). CONCLUSION Preoperative diagnosis of SESCC should be conducted endoscopically using white light and magnification. In China, EUS can be added after obtaining patient consent. Use of a high-frequency miniature probe or miniature probe combined with conventional EUS is preferable.

To study the role of Body Mass Index (BMI) and serum lipid profile molecules, as well as their derivative indexes in primary pterygium patients. The patient group consisted of 110 patients with primary pterygium diagnosed in our center between January 2019 and December 2020, while the control group consisted of 144 healthy persons of similar age and sex diagnosed during the same time period. The BMI, serum lipid profile molecules and their derivative indexes of both groups were analyzed retrospectively. In the patient group, 62 patients were overweight or obesity and 104 patients with dyslipidemia. Among them, body mass index (BMI), serum triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) and apolipoprotein B (Apo‐B) levels were significantly higher than those in the control group (p < 0.05). The difference in Apo‐B/ApoAl ratio, TC/LDL‐C ratio, HDL‐C/LDL‐C ratio was statistically significant (p < 0 .05), while the serum high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C), apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1) and TG/LDL‐C ratio were not significantly different in the patient group compared with control group (p > 0.05). Logistic analysis indicated that obesity, TC and HDL‐C/LDL‐C ratio are independent risk factors influencing the onset of pterygium (p < .05). BMI and serum lipid level are both significantly associated with primary pterygium. Obesity and abnormal serum lipid metabolism are independent risk factors for pterygium and play a critical role in the development of pterygium. Obesity and serum lipid level can significantly affect clinical management of pterygium. These characteristics are simple to use in clinical practice and may aid in the identification of pterygium high‐risk populations.