Relationship of prognostic factors in stomach cancer with Helicobacter pylori: A retrospective study

Abstract

Background and study aims: The prognostic value of H. pylori, which infects more than half of the human population living in the world and plays a role in gastric cancer pathogenesis, is controversial. Our aim is to investigate the relationship between H. pylori and prognostic factors in gastric cancer. Patients and methods: The data of 110 patients (38 females and 72 males) that underwent surgeries due to gastric cancer between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The relationships between survival (disease-free and overall) and factors such as p53, HER2/neu, Ki-67, neutrophil and platelet lymphocyte ratio (NLR / PLR), histopathological and demographic characteristics were examined. In addition, the results of H. pylori positive and negative groups were compared. Results: Sixty-one (55%) patients were H. pylori negative and 49 (45%) were positive. In multivariate analysis, TNM stage, lymph node capsule invasion and NLR were determined as independent prognostic factors in both disease-free and overall survival. Age>62 and PLR>14.3 were determined as independent predictive factors of poor prognosis in overall survival. In univariate analysis, tumor diameter of >4.3 cm, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, and diffuse p53 expression were determined as predictive factors of poor prognosis in disease-free and overall survival. The effectiveness of these markers in prognosis was not different between H. pylori negative and positive groups. Conclusion: While age, tumor diameter, TNM stage, lymph node capsule invasion, perineural and lymphovascular invasion, diffuse p53, PLR, and NLR were determined as prognostic factors in gastric cancer, these factors were not affected by the presence of H. pylori.

Helicobacter pylori Infection as a Predictor of Treatment Outcomes of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of 17,333 potentially relevant studies were retrieved through database and manual searches. After de-duplication, abstract screening, and full-text screening, 21 studies met our selection criteria [9,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Figure 1 illustrates a flow diagram showing the process of literature screening.…”

“…The general information of the included literature is summarized in Table 1. In terms of outcome evaluation, 11 studies [9, 11-17, 19, 23, 24] only provided OS, 8 studies [18,22,[25][26][27][28][29][30] provided OS and DFS or RFS, and 2 studies [20,21] provided CSS and DFS or RFS. In the subsequent statistical analysis, we merged OS with CSS and DFS with RFS (details in online suppl.…”