Background
Gastric cancer is a global disease with high morbidity and mortality [1]. With the improvement of quality of life and treatment methods, a steady downward trend in the incidence and mortality rates of gastric cancer has been observed [2]. Nonetheless, over 1 million new cases of gastric cancer and 760,000 deaths are still reported worldwide each year, making it the fifth most diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death globally [3].
Although progress has been made in biological research on the occurrence and development of gastric cancer, radical surgery is still the most important treatment approach for resectable gastric cancer [4, 5]. Studies have reported that 50–70% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or advanced gastric cancer at the first visit [6, 7]. Moreover, the 5-year overall survival of resectable locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) is 20–30% after radical surgery [8‐10]. In recent years, the treatment of LAGC has been transformed from a single operation mode to a comprehensive treatment mode based on surgery combined with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy [11‐15]. Compared with surgery alone, the conceivable advantages of preoperative neoadjuvant therapy involve downstaging, increasing the radical resection rate, and improving survival outcomes [11‐13, 16]. However, the optimal regimen of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is inconclusive, and there are East-West differences. The PRODIGY study in South Korea showed that DOS for 3 cycles before surgery for LAGC could downstage tumors and significantly improve PFS [12]. The FLOT4-AIO trial found that compared with the ECF/ECX chemotherapy regimen, the FLOT regimen could acquire higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate and R0 resection rate without increasing adverse effects, thereby improving the 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients (45% vs. 36%) and disease-free survival (DFS) (41% vs. 31%) [13]. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization has been widely used in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and has become the first-line treatment strategy for intermediate stage liver cancer [17]. Arterial chemotherapy or chemoembolization has rarely been reported in gastric cancer. Some studies have shown that systemic chemotherapy combined with arterial chemotherapy can significantly improve the outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer [18‐21].
Anzeige
However, whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in efficacy and adverse events in patients with LAGC has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective study to assess the short-term efficacy, safety, and feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization for resectable LAGC.
Materials and methods
Patients
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of gastric cancer patients hospitalized in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from June 2019 to December 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Pathologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma or mucinous adenocarcinoma, (2) Locally advanced gastric cancer (cT1 − 2 N+M0 or cT3 − 4b Any NM0) and resectable, [22, 23] (3) two or more cycles of neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy only or chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization), and (4) Completed radical surgery [24]. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1. synchronous other malignancies, 2, incomplete medical records, and 3. palliative surgery or emergency surgery. Finally, 203 patients with LAGC were enrolled, including 101 in the conventional group and 102 in the combined group (Fig. 1). This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, and written informed consent was obtained from the patients (Approval number: 20,192,801).
Fig. 1
The process of screening patients in this study according to inclusion and exclusion criteria
×
![]()
Laboratory and imaging examination
One week before neoadjuvant therapy, all patients received routine blood tests, liver and kidney function tests, and serum tumor-related antigen tests (e.g., CEA, CA19-9). Previous studies reported that pre-treatment blood biomarkers can predict tumor regression response [25, 26]. Therefore, we analyzed the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) before neoadjuvant therapy. Gastroscopy, gastrointestinal ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced CT of the chest and abdomen were performed to evaluate the clinical stage of the tumor and the effect of neoadjuvant therapy.
Anzeige
Treatment
Chemotherapy
Patients with LAGC underwent 2–4 cycles of chemotherapy before radical surgery. The preoperative chemotherapy regimen included the DOS regimen: docetaxel and oxaliplatin (50 mg/m2 and 100 mg/m2) were given intravenously on Day 1, and S-1 (40 mg/m2) was given orally twice a Days on day 1–14; The NPOS regimen: included intravenous nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) on Day 1, oral S-1 (40 mg/m2) twice a day from Days 1 to 14.
Arterial chemoembolization
A 5 F vascular sheath was inserted by retrograde puncture of the right femoral artery by the Seldinger technique, [27] and then was placed into the celiac axis. The contrast medium was injected to show the celiac trunk and its branches. A 2.9 F microcatheter and a 2.7 F microguide wire were used to superselect the main blood supply arteries of the tumor. Angiographic vessels were selected according to tumor location. For cardia and fundus carcinomas, catheters were inserted into the left gastric artery and the left inferior phrenic artery. Lesser curvature gastric catheters were inserted into the left and right gastric arteries. For tumors of the greater curvature of the stomach, right gastroepiploic artery and gastroduodenal arteriography were performed. Gastroduodenal and right gastric arteriograms were performed if the tumor was located in the gastric antrum. Arteries for chemotherapy and embolization were identified based on angiographic findings. The chemotherapy regimen was oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2) and docetaxel (50 mg/m2)/nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2). After arterial chemotherapy was completed, lipiodol (5 ml) was used to embolize the blood vessels and reimaging was performed to ensure complete embolization of the blood vessels supplying the tumor. After arterial chemoembolization was completed, the patients took oral S-1 from Day 1 to Day 14. Then, 1–3 cycles of intravenous chemotherapy were performed before surgery. (Fig. S1)
Surgical procedure
The imaging evaluation was re-evaluated within 3–4 weeks after the completion of 2 or more neoadjuvant treatment cycles. If the tumor regressed well, the operation was performed within 3–4 weeks after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy after the evaluation of 2 gastrointestinal tumor surgeons with 10 years of experience. The decision to use laparoscopic gastrectomy was based on tumor stage, history of abdominal surgery, and tolerability of laparoscopic surgery. Surgical schemes for gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy include: distal gastrectomy with No. 1/3/4sb/4d/5/6/7/8a/9/11p/12a lymph node dissection; and total gastrectomy with No. 1/2/3/4sa/4sb/4d/5/6/7/8a/9/11p/11d/12a lymph node dissection. Billroth I gastroduodenostomy, Billroth II gastrojejunostomy, and Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy were employed for gastrointestinal reconstruction after distal gastrectomy. The Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy was used to reconstruct the digestive tract after total gastrectomy [24, 28].
Neoadjuvant therapy adverse events and pathological response assessment
The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 4.0) was utilized to record the adverse effects of chemotherapy. The main adverse events of neoadjuvant therapy included: leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, liver and kidney dysfunction, febrile neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, etc. Postoperative morbidity was defined as complications occurring within 30 days of surgery or during hospitalization. Postoperative complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification system [29]. Pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy was evaluated in accordance with tumor regression grade (TRG) [30]. Patients with TRG 0–1 have a good response, while those with TRG 2–3 have a poor response. pCR was defined as the absence of any residual tumor cells in gastric and dissected lymph node specimens on postoperative histological evaluation after neoadjuvant therapy. HER-2 positivity was defined as IHC 3 + or FISH positivity [24].
Statistical analysis
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and relative area under the curve (AUC) statistics were applied to select the ratio of the point of maximum sensitivity and specificity as the optimal cut-off values for pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR. Categorical variables were analyzed using the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were expressed as the median (interquartile range), and differences between the two groups were analyzed by unpaired t test or the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using binary logistic regression models to explore the factors affecting pCR and tumor regression. Variables with P < 0.10 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. Nomograms were drawn based on predictors of pCR and TRG in the multivariate analysis, and the performance of the nomograms was assessed using internal validation and AUC. Moreover, the discriminative power of the nomogram was evaluated by the C-index. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS statistical package version 22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) and R software (Version 4.0.1.).
Results
Patient characteristics
A total of 203 patients with LAGC were enrolled in this study, including 101 in the conventional group and 102 in the combined group. The baseline characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. Among the 203 patients, the median age was 58 years, and most of them (75.37%) were male. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin level, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, CEA level or CA19-9 level between the two groups before neoadjuvant therapy. The majority of the patients (74.88%) had T4 stage disease, 175 (86.21%) patients had lymph node metastasis, 43 (30.46%) had clinical II stage disease, and 160 (69.54%) had clinical III stage disease. A total of 53.48% of the patients received NPOS chemotherapy, and 46.52% received DOS chemotherapy. In the combined group, 11 patients underwent 2 sessions of arterial chemoembolization therapy. Moreover, approximately half of the patients underwent surgery after 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy.
Table 1
Patient characteristics
Characteristic | Conventional group (n = 101) | Combined group (n = 102) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | 0.254 | |||
Male | 80 (79.2%) | 73 (71.6%) | ||
Female | 21 (20.8%) | 29 (28.4%) | ||
Age | Median (IQR, years) | 57 (50–65) | 61 (51-67.25) | 0.151 |
< 60 years | 59 (58.4%) | 49 (48%) | 0.16 | |
BMI | Median (IQR, kg/m2) | 21.64 (20.24–24.22) | 22.15 (20.48–24.22) | 0.637 |
Smoking | 59 (58.4%) | 60 (58.8%) | 1 | |
Drinking | 53 (52.5%) | 59 (57.8%) | 0.482 | |
Comorbidity | ||||
Hypertension | 14 (13.9%) | 16 (15.7%) | 0.844 | |
Coronary heart disease | 3 (3%) | 4 (3.9%) | 1 | |
Diabetes | 14 (13.9%) | 8 (7.8%) | 0.183 | |
Other | 15 (14.9%) | 12 (11.8%) | 0.542 | |
Family history | 4 (4%) | 7 (6.9%) | 0.537f | |
ASA | 0.622 | |||
1 | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | ||
2 | 63 (62.4%) | 56 (54.9%) | ||
3 | 35 (34.6%) | 44 (43.1%) | ||
4 | 1 (1%) | 1(1%) | ||
Pretreatment Hb (IQR, g/L) | 118 (86–133) | 125 (92–139) | 0.17 | |
Pretreatment neutrophils (IQR, *108) | 3.74 (3.09–4.76) | 3.72 (2.92–4.92) | 0.969 | |
Pretreatment lymphocyte (IQR, *108) | 1.37 (1.06–1.68) | 1.41 (1.13–1.73) | 0.574 | |
Pretreatment platelet (IQR, *108) | 243 (203–351) | 235 (181–307) | 0.235 | |
Pretreatment albumin (IQR, g/L) | 38 (34–41) | 31 (33–40) | 0.567 | |
Pretreatment CEA(>5.2 ng/ml) | 36 (35.6%) | 26 (25.5%) | 0.129 | |
Pretreatment CA19-9 (> 27 U/ml) | 34 (33.7%) | 29 (28.4%) | 0.451 | |
Tumor location | 0.766 | |||
Upper stomach | 35 (34.6%) | 36 (35.3%) | ||
Middle stomach | 22 (21.8%) | 26 (25.5%) | ||
Lower stomach | 44 (43.6%) | 40 (39.2%) | ||
Tumor size (IQR, cm) | 6 (5-7.7) | 5.57 (4.6–6.8) | 0.236 | |
Borrmann typing | 0.49 | |||
I | 26 (25.7%) | 34 (33.3%) | ||
II | 12 (11.9%) | 12 (11.8%) | ||
III | 51 (34.6%) | 49 (48%) | ||
IV | 12 (11.9%) | 7 (6.9%) | ||
Clinical T stage | 0.859 | |||
T3 | 24 (23.8%) | 27 (26.5%) | ||
T4a | 70 (69.3%) | 67 (65.7%) | ||
T4b | 7 (6.9%) | 8 (7.8%) | ||
Clinical N stage | 0.374 | |||
N0 | 11 (10.9%) | 17 (16.7%) | ||
N1 | 29 (28.7%) | 27 (26.5%) | ||
N2 | 42 (41.6%) | 46 (45.1%) | ||
N3 | 19 (18.8%) | 12 (11.8%) | ||
Clinical TNM stage | 0.825 | |||
IIa | 2 (2%) | 3 (2.9%) | ||
IIb | 16 (15.8%) | 22 (21.6%) | ||
IIIa | 31 (30.7%) | 30 (29.4%) | ||
IIIb | 35 (34.7%) | 33 (32.4%) | ||
IIIc | 17 (16.8%) | 14 (13.7%) | ||
Chemotherapy regimen | 0.152 | |||
NPOS | 56 (55.4%) | 67 (65.7%) | ||
DOS | 45 (44.6%) | 35 (34.3%) | ||
Number of neoadjuvant therapy cycles | 0.175 | |||
2 | 49 (48.5%) | 57 (55.9%) | ||
3 | 40 (39.6%) | 40 (39.2%) | ||
4 | 12 (11.9%) | 5(4.9%) | ||
Number of chemoembolization | ||||
1 | 91 (89.2%) | |||
2 | 11(10.8%) | |||
Neoadjuvant therapy adverse events
The adverse events during neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated using the CTCAE 4.0. (Table 2). Hematologic toxicity was assessed by routine blood tests and liver and kidney function tests on Days 7, 14, and 21 of each treatment cycle. A total of 43 patients experienced grade 3–4 adverse events, the majority of which were hematological toxicity. The number of patients with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in the combined group was greater than that in the conventional group (11.8% vs. 4%), but there was no significant difference (P = 0.065). In addition, a total of 5 patients developed grade ≥ 3 febrile neutropenia. The main adverse events of grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicity during neoadjuvant therapy were nausea and vomiting (n = 7), liver function impairment (n = 7), infection (n = 3), and diarrhea (n = 3).
Table 2
Neoadjuvant therapy adverse events
Grade (CTCAE v 4.0) | Conventional group (n = 101) | Combined group (n = 102) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade 1–2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | ≥Grade 3 | Grade 1–2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | ≥Grade 3 | ||
All adverse events | 60 (59.4%) | 16 (15.8%) | 3 (3%) | 17 (16.8%) * | 66 (64.7%) | 25 (24.5%) | 5 (4.9%) | 26(25.5%) * | |
Leukopenia | 26 (25.7%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 2 (2%) | 25 (24.5%) | 4 (3.9%) | 4 (3.9%) | 8 (7.8%) | |
Neutropenia | 31 (30.7%) | 3 (3%) | 1 (1%) | 4 (4%) | 22 (21.6%) | 8 (7.8%) | 4 (3.9%) | 12 (11.8%) | |
Thrombocytopenia | 7 (6.9%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 1 (1%) | 7 (6.86%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | |
Febrile neutropenia | 0 | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (2.9%) | |
Anemia | 13 (12.9%) | 9 (8.9%) | 0 | 9 (8.9%) | 19 (18.6%) | 6 (7.8%) | 1 (1%) | 7 (6.86%) | |
Nausea and vomiting | 16 (15.8%) | 4 (4%) | 0 | 4 (4%) | 29 (28.4%) | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | |
Anorexia | 11 (10.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 (18.6%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 1 (1%) | |
ALT or AST increased | 18 (17.8%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | 13 (12.7%) | 5 (4.9%) | 0 | 5 (4.9%) | |
Serum creatinine increased | 3 (3%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Infection | 1 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | |
Diarrhea | 3 (3%) | 3 (3%) | 0 | 3 (3%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Other | 2 (2%) | 0 | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 2 (2%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | |
Anzeige
Details of surgery and postoperative clinical outcomes
Laparoscopic gastric resection was performed in 192 patients, of whom 57.8% underwent total gastrectomy with lymph node dissection (D2). Thirteen patients underwent combined organ resection (spleen, pancreas, or liver) due to tumor invasion into adjacent organs. The median operative time in the combined group was shorter than that in the conventional group (P = 0.029). Compared with the conventional group, the median intraoperative blood loss was less in the combined group (P = 0.011). Moreover, the patients in the combined group had less liquid diet time and hospital stay after operation than those in the conventional group. The details of the surgery are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
The detail of surgery
Conventional group (n = 101) | Combined group (n = 102) | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Surgical approach | 0.291 | |||
Laparoscopy | 93 (92.1%) | 99 (97.1%) | ||
Open | 3 (3%) | 1 (1%) | ||
Conversion to open | 5 (4.9%) | 2 (2%) | ||
Gastrectomy type | 0.261 | |||
Total gastrectomy | 51 (50.5%) | 60 (58.8%) | ||
Distal gastrectomy | 50 (49.5%) | 42 (41.2%) | ||
Combined resection | 8 (7.9%) | 5 (4.9%) | 0.407 | |
Residual tumor status | 1 | |||
R0 | 98 (97%) | 99 (97.1%) | ||
R1 | 3 (3%) | 3 (2.9%) | ||
Operation time (IQR, min) | 222 (175-267.5) | 200 (160–245) | 0.029 | |
Blood loss (IQR, ml) | 100 (50–200) | 75 (50-175.25) | 0.011 | |
Blood transfusion | 17 (16.8%) | 18 (17.6%) | 1 | |
Intraoperative complications | 3 (3%) | 3 (2.9%) | 1 | |
Time of liquid diet (IQR, day) | 7 (5–10) | 6 (5–8) | 0.006 | |
Postoperative hospital stays (IQR, day) | 11 (8–17) | 10 (8–13) | 0.012 | |
Reoperation | 4 (4%) | 5 (4.9%) | 1 | |
Readmission | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 0.621 | |
Mortality | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 1 | |
Postoperative complications that occurred during hospitalization or within 30 days of surgery were recorded and classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification system (Table 4). A total of 23 patients experienced grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications. Major grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications included anastomotic leakage (n = 14), intra-abdominal infection (n = 11), and pulmonary infection (n = 6). In addition, 9 patients underwent reoperation due to postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage (n = 5), hemorrhage (n = 2), and wound infection (n = 2). There was no significant difference in any complication events of grade ≥ 3 between the two groups (P = 0.659).
Table 4
Postoperative complications
Clavien–Dindo classification | Conventional group (n = 101) | Combined group (n = 102) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade I-II | Grade III | Grade IV | Grade V | ≥III grade | Grade I-II | Grade III | Grade IV | Grade V | ≥III grade | ||
Anastomotic leakage | 8 (7.9%) | 4 (4%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 6 (5.9%) | 8 (7.8%) | 5 (4.9%) | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 8 (7.9%) | |
Abdominal infection | 26 (25.7%) | 2 (2%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 4 (4%) | 18 (17.6%) | 4 (3.9%) | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 7 (6.9%) | |
Intestinal obstruction | 15 (14.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | |
Hemorrhage | 1 (1%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | 0 | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | |
Wound infection | 3 (3%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (2%) | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | |
Pulmonary infection | 23 (22.8%) | 2 (2%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (2%) | 21 (20.6%) | 3 (2.9%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 4 (3.9%) | |
Cardiovascular events | 0 | 1 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (2%) | 4 (3.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Thrombotic events | 1 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Urinary tract infection | 3 (3%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (3.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Any complication events | 44 (43.6%) | 9 (8.9%) | 3 (3%) | 1 (1%) | 10 (9.9%) | 38 (37.3%) | 11 (10.8%) | 4 (3.9%) | 1 (1%) | 13 (12.7%) | |
Anzeige
Pathological characteristics
The predominant pathological type of the patients included in the study was adenocarcinoma (n = 186). After neoadjuvant therapy, 10.8% of the patients achieved ypT0, and 46.8% of the patients were negative for lymph node metastasis. In addition, TRG 0–1 was identified in 53 patients. Finally, twenty-two patients achieved pCR in the primary tumor and lymph nodes, and 17 patients were from the combined group (Table 5).
Table 5
Pathological Characteristics
Conventional group (n = 101) | Combined group (n = 102) | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Pathological Type | 0.314 | |||
Adenocarcinoma | 94 (93.1%) | 92 (90.2%) | ||
Mucinous | 7 (6.9%) | 10 (9.8%) | ||
Degree of differentiation | 0.661 | |||
Poorly/Mucinous | 49 (48.5%) | 54 (52.9%) | ||
Moderate | 51 (50.5%) | 46 (45.1%) | ||
Well | 1 (1%) | 2 (2%) | ||
T Stage | 0.03 | |||
ypT0 | 5 (5%) | 17 (16.7%) | ||
ypT1 | 7 (6.9%) | 9 (8.8%) | ||
ypT2 | 23 (12.9%) | 17 (16.7%) | ||
ypT3 | 54 (53.5%) | 42 (41.2%) | ||
ypT4 | 12 (11.9%) | 18 (17.6%) | ||
N Stage | 0.055 | |||
ypN0 | 38 (37.6%) | 57 (55.9%) | ||
ypN1 | 17 (16.8%) | 15 (14.7%) | ||
ypN2 | 26 (25.7%) | 15 (14.7%) | ||
ypN3 | 20 (19.8%) | 15 (14.7%) | ||
M Stage | 0.748 | |||
ypM0 | 97 (96%) | 96 (94.1%) | ||
ypM1 | 4 (4%) | 6 (5.9%) | ||
TRG | 0.028 | |||
Grade 0 | 5 (5%) | 17 (16.7%) | ||
Grade 1 | 18 (17.8%) | 23 (22.5%) | ||
Grade 2 | 56 (55.4%) | 46 (45.1%) | ||
Grade 3 | 22 (21.8%) | 16 (15.7%) | ||
T Downstage | 79 (78.2%) | 75 (73.5%) | 0.512 | |
N Downstage | 47 (46.5%) | 54 (52.9%) | 0.401 | |
Pathological Complete Response | 5 (5%) | 17 (16.7%) | 0.012 | |
Angiolymphatic invasion | 12 (11.9%) | 18 (17.6%) | 0.323 | |
Tumor deposit | 6 (5.9%) | 11 (10.8%) | 0.311 | |
HER2 positive | 13 (12.9%) | 9 (8.8%) | 0.376 | |
Predictors of pCR to Neoadjuvant Therapy
In the ROC analysis, the AUCs of the pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR for pCR were 0.649 (P = 0.028) and 0.631 (P = 0.055), respectively, and the optimal cutoffs were 2.86 and 182, respectively (Fig. S2). Therefore, NLR < 2.86 was defined as low NLR, and PLR < 182 was defined as low PLR. In the univariate analysis, it was found that pCR was associated with pre-treatment NLR (OR = 0.355, 95% CI 0.133–0.948, P = 0.039) and pre-treatment PLR (OR = 0.137, 95% CI 0.039–0.478, P = 0.002). In addition, preoperative arterial chemoembolization therapy was also an important factor for pCR (OR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.359–10.853, P = 0.011). The characteristics of the variables with P < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were analyzed by multivariate analysis. The analysis results indicated that pre-treatment NLR (OR = 0.193, 95% CI 0.016–0.611, P = 0.005), pre-treatment PLR (OR = 0.077, 95% CI 0.018–0.333, P = 0.001) and arterial chemoembolization (OR = 3.766, 95% CI 1.177–12.054, P = 0.025) were critical predictive factors of pCR (Table 6).
Table 6
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy
Patient characteristics | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | P | OR | 95% CI | P | ||
Gender | |||||||
Female | ref | ||||||
Male | 3.609 | 0.813–16.022 | 0.091 | 2.199 | 0.438–11.049 | 0.339 | |
Age | |||||||
<60 years | ref | ||||||
≥ 60 years | 1.744 | 0.71–4.284 | 0.225 | ||||
BMI | |||||||
<25 kg/m2 | ref | ||||||
≥ 25 kg/m2 | 1.966 | 0.71–5.445 | 0.194 | ||||
Tumor location | 0.988 | ||||||
Upper stomach | ref | ||||||
Middle stomach | 0.916 | 0.281–2.988 | 0.844 | ||||
Lower stomach | 0.945 | 0.344–2.593 | 0.913 | ||||
Tumor size | |||||||
<5.8 cm | ref | ||||||
≥5.8 cm | 0.824 | 0.339–2.004 | 0.67 | ||||
Pre-treatment NLR | |||||||
<2.86 | ref | ||||||
≥ 2.86 | 0.355 | 0.133–0.948 | 0.039 | 0.193 | 0.016–0.611 | 0.005 | |
Pre-treatment PLR | |||||||
<182 | ref | ||||||
≥ 182 | 0.137 | 0.039–0.478 | 0.002 | 0.077 | 0.018–0.333 | 0.001 | |
CEA | |||||||
<5.2ng/ml | ref | ||||||
≥ 5.2ng/ml | 1.628 | 0.657–4.035 | 0.292 | ||||
CA19-9 | |||||||
<27U/ml | ref | ||||||
≥ 27U/ml | 0.624 | 0.219–1.773 | 0.376 | ||||
Degree of differentiation | |||||||
poor/mucinous | ref | ||||||
moderate/well | 0.994 | 0.409–2.417 | 0.989 | ||||
HER-2 | |||||||
negative | ref | ||||||
positive | 2.756 | 0.352–21.561 | 0.334 | ||||
Clinical T stage | 0.907 | ||||||
T3 | ref | ||||||
T4a | 0.854 | 0.309–2.357 | 0.76 | ||||
T4b | 1.154 | 0.208–6.413 | 0.87 | ||||
Clinical N stage | 0.062 | 0.064 | |||||
N0 | ref | ref | |||||
N1 | 0.208 | 0.048–0.905 | 0.036 | 0.445 | 0.069–2.875 | 0.395 | |
N2 | 0.317 | 0.097–1.039 | 0.058 | 1.044 | 0.063–17.217 | 0.976 | |
N3 | 0.88 | 0.248–3.128 | 0.843 | 5.391 | 0.303–95.933 | 0.251 | |
Clinical TNM stage | |||||||
II | ref | ||||||
III | 0.42 | 0.163–1.078 | 0.071 | 0.306 | 0.025–3.74 | 0.354 | |
Chemotherapy regimen | |||||||
DOS | ref | ||||||
NPOS | 1.156 | 0.461–2.896 | 0.757 | ||||
Arterial chemoembolization | |||||||
No | ref | ||||||
Yes | 3.84 | 1.359–10.853 | 0.011 | 3.766 | 1.177–12.054 | 0.025 | |
Number of chemotherapy cycles | 0.531 | ||||||
2 | ref | ||||||
3 | 0.541 | 0.186–1.579 | 0.261 | ||||
4 | 0.806 | 0.215–3.024 | 0.749 | ||||
Anzeige
Based on the results of the multivariate analysis, pre-treatment NLR, pre-treatment PLR and arterial chemoembolization were applied to develop a visual nomogram to predict the response of LAGC to neoadjuvant therapy (Fig. 2A). The patients with higher scores were more likely to achieve pCR after neoadjuvant therapy. The internal validation calibration curves showed good consistency between the predicted and actual probabilities of pCR (Fig. 2B). The C-index was performed to evaluate the discriminant ability of the model. The results revealed that the C-index of the nomogram was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.702–0.917). In addition, the ROC curve was also consistent with the C index (Fig. 2C).
Fig. 2
A A nomogram for predicting the probability of pCR to neoadjuvant therapy in LAGC patients; B curves with internal validation for the nomogram; C ROC analysis of the nomogram
×
![]()
Discussion
In this study, we examined the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization on the short-term clinical outcomes of LAGC. Our data showed that compared with the conventional group, the combined group did not experienced increased adverse events of chemotherapy or postoperative complications. In contrast, the operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the combined group were shorter than those in the conventional group. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that pre-treatment NLR, pre-treatment PLR and arterial chemoembolization were significant predictors of pCR after neoadjuvant therapy.
Arterial chemoembolization is widely used in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [31‐33]. Arterial chemoembolization has rarely been applied in LAGC. Nakajima et al. revealed that arterial chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide on Days 6 and 20 after intravenous chemotherapy with fluorouracil and calcium folinate in patients with unresectable gastric cancer significantly improved tumor response and resection rates [34]. Zhang et al. compared the effect of different administration methods on patients with unresectable gastric cancer. The patients were divided into two groups: one group received chemotherapy with the XELOX regimen, and the other group received chemotherapy with the FLEEOX regimen (after 5 days of continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil and calcium folinate, oxaliplatin, epirubicin, and etoposide were injected intra-arterially on Days 6 and 20, respectively.). The study found that the FLEEOX regimen greatly improved the R0 resection rate, median OS and DFS, but had no significant impact on chemotherapy toxicity or postoperative complications [35]. A retrospective study involving 128 patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer showed that compared with systemic chemotherapy, systemic chemotherapy combined with regional arterial chemoembolization did not increase the number of chemotherapy adverse events. In addition, combined therapy also effectively improved the OS, DFS and clinical response rate [18].
Similarly, in our study, the combined group did not exhibit increased chemotherapy adverse events or postoperative complications in the patients with LAGC. The patients in the combined group had a higher pCR rate than those in the conventional group.
Several studies have shown that patients with LAGC who achieve pCR after neoadjuvant therapy have better oncological outcomes [36‐38]. However, the influencing factors of pCR in LAGC remain unclear. Becker et al. suggested that pCR was related to tumor location, degree of differentiation, chemotherapy regimen and number of chemotherapy cycles [39]. In this study, the pCR rate in the combined group was significantly higher than that in the conventional group. Arterial chemoembolization enhanced the anticancer effect by increasing the concentration of chemotherapeutic drug in the tumor area and prolonging the drug reaction time [40]. Embolization of tumor trophoblastic vessels reduced the tumor blood supply, which resulted in necrosis of tumor cells. Moreover, arterial chemotherapy could inhibit tumor cell proliferation by inducing tumor cell apoptosis, thereby improving the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy [41].
Inflammation, considered an important factor affecting the occurrence and progression of tumors, contributes to tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, angiogenesis, and chemoresistance [42, 43]. Several studies have found that pre-treatment NLR is an independent effect factor for pCR in breast cancer patients [44‐46]. Lore et al. also found that patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with pre-treatment NLR > 4.06 had poor tumor response and DFS to chemoradiotherapy [47]. In addition, Shi et al. also showed that pre-treatment NLR was an independent predictor of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer [26]. As with colorectal and breast cancers, studies have indicated that pre-treatment NLR, PLR and LMR (lymphocyte to monocyte ratio) were the predictors for tumor regression response and oncological outcomes in LAGC patients after neoadjuvant therapy [48‐51]. Unexpectedly, in the multivariate analysis, it was also revealed that pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR were independent predictors of pCR after neoadjuvant therapy in this study. It has been shown that neutrophils are capable of secreting chemokines, cytokines and matrix-degrading proteases. Cytokines stimulate tumor microangiogenesis, and matrix-degrading proteases increase tumor adhesion and promoted distant metastasis [52, 53]. Platelets are able to promote epithelial mesenchymal transformation and metastatic tumor progression through cytokines (e.g., VEGR, EGF, platelet-derived growth factor, hepatocyte growth factor, TGF-β.) [54‐56]. Lymphocytes may inhibit tumor cell proliferation and migration by inducing cytotoxic cell death. In addition, lymphocytes play a crucial role in the immune surveillance, recognition and destruction of cancer cells [57‐59].
It is worth mentioning that this study has some limitations. First, as a retrospective study with a small sample size, information bias and selection bias were difficult to avoid. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Second, postoperative complications after neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer were related to age. Patients > 60 years old had higher postoperative morbidity [60, 61]. Approximately half of the study population in our study was younger than 60 years old, and they may have a low comorbidity rate and a low rate of postoperative complications. However, whether chemoembolization would increase postoperative complications in patients aged >60 years old should be verified by subgroup analysis. Third, the inflammatory markers were non-specific and were influenced by a variety of factors, such as drugs, comorbidities, and infections [62]. Moreover, the optimal cut-off values for pre-treatment PLR and pre-treatment NLR were not known. In this study, the cutoff values of pre-treatment PLR and pre-treatment NLR were obtained according to effective statistical methods, but population-based research is still needed for verification. Finally, we failed to obtain enough follow-up data to evaluate the effect of arterial chemoembolization, inflammatory markers and pCR on DFS and OS. Therefore, large-scale multicenter study is needed for further confirmation.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization did not increase the adverse events of chemotherapy or postoperative complications in patients with LAGC. Arterial chemoembolization, pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR were independent predictors of pCR after neoadjuvant therapy. Therefore, arterial chemoembolization may be a safe and effective regimen of neoadjuvant therapy for LAGC.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. (Approval number: 20192801) and carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University waived the requirement for informed consent from all research participants due to the retrospective and anonymous nature of this study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no conficts of interest to in association with the present study.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.