Log odds of positive lymph nodes as a novel prognostic predictor for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the predictive and prognostic ability of the log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) staging system and compare it with pathological N (pN) classification and the ratio-based lymph node system (rN) for the overall survival (OS) of gast...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC cancer 2023-06, Vol.23 (1), p.523-523, Article 523
Hauptverfasser: Li, Yiding, Wu, Guiling, Liu, Jinqiang, Zhang, Yujie, Yang, Wanli, Wang, Xiaoqian, Duan, Lili, Niu, Liaoran, Chen, Junfeng, Zhou, Wei, Han, Weili, Wang, Jing, Zhong, Helun, Ji, Gang, Fan, Daiming, Hong, Liu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the predictive and prognostic ability of the log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) staging system and compare it with pathological N (pN) classification and the ratio-based lymph node system (rN) for the overall survival (OS) of gastric cancer (GC). Through a systematic review till March 7, 2022, we identified population-based studies that reported the prognostic effects of LODDS in patients with GC. We compare the predictive effectiveness of the LODDS staging system with that of the rN and pN classification systems for the OS of GC. Twelve studies comprising 20,312 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed that LODDS1, LODDS2, LODDS3, and LODDS4 in GC patients were correlated with poor OS compared with LODDS0 (LODDS1 vs. LODDS0: HR = 1.62, 95% CI (1.42, 1.85); LODDS2 vs. LODDS0: HR = 2.47, 95% CI (2.02, 3.03); LODDS3 vs. LODDS0: HR = 3.15, 95% CI (2.50, 3.97); LODDS4 vs. LODDS0: HR = 4.55, 95% CI (3.29, 6.29)). Additionally, significant differences in survival were observed among patients with different LODDS classifications (all P-values were 
ISSN:1471-2407
1471-2407
DOI:10.1186/s12885-023-10805-6