Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Correlation analyses between pre- and post-operative adverse events in gastric cancer patients receiving preoperative treatment and gastrectomy

  • Shuang-Xi Li1, 2,
  • Sang Hyuk Seo1, 3,
  • Yoon Young Choi1,
  • Masatoshi Nakagawa1, 4,
  • Ji Yeong An1, 5,
  • Hyoung-Il Kim1,
  • Jae-Ho Cheong1,
  • Woo Jin Hyung1 and
  • Sung Hoon Noh1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Cancer201616:29

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2066-y

Received: 3 October 2015

Accepted: 11 January 2016

Published: 19 January 2016

Abstract

Backgrounds

Preoperative chemotherapy (PCT) and chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) showed promising results for gastric cancers. However, the influence of preoperative adverse events (AEs) on postoperative complications remains unknown. The aim of this study was to identify correlations between them.

Methods

Clinical data and laboratory findings were retrieved retrospectively for 115 patients who underwent gastrectomy after PCT or PCRT between 2010 and 2013. Preoperative AEs and postoperative complications were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and Clavien-Dindo (CD) grading systems, respectively. Correlations between CTCAE grades and CD grades were analyzed, and clinical data and laboratory findings were compared among three groups classified according to CD grades: CD0, CD1/2, and CD3/4.

Results

There were 61 (53.0 %) patients in the CD0 group, 44 (38.3 %) patients in the CD1/2 group, and 10 (8.7 %) patients in the CD3/4 group. The CTCAE grades did not correlate with the CD grades. Only estimated blood loss (P = 0.019) and transfusion rate (P < 0.001) differed among the three CD groups.

Conclusion

There are no correlations between pre- and post-operative adverse events in the terms of severity grades in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy after PCT or PCRT. Meticulous intraoperative manipulations should be emphasized.

Keywords

Gastric cancer Adverse event Postoperative complication Clavien-Dindo CTCAE

Background

Gastric cancer is the fifth most prevalent cancer worldwide, and more than 70 % of them occur in less developed countries [1], where they are often diagnosed at an advanced stage. D2 gastrectomy is regarded as the standard surgical treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) based on randomized controlled trials [2, 3]. However, further treatment in addition to surgery is required to improve patient survival. The kind of additional treatment varies in different parts of the world: in East Asia, adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy is standard treatment for AGC [4, 5], whereas perioperative chemotherapy or postoperative chemoradiotherapy with gastrectomy is standard treatment in the West [68].

Recently, the use of preoperative chemotherapy (PCT) has gained increasing interest because of its possible advantages: 1) tumor down-staging increases the possibility of achieving complete surgical resection, 2) early application of chemotherapy may be effective in controlling micrometastases, 3) patients are more tolerable to chemotherapy before surgery, 4) the delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs will be enhanced because the blood supply to the tumor is intact, and 5) responses to chemotherapy are easily detected. PCT may even be useful for select patients with metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) prior to surgery [9, 10].

Despite these potential advantages, adverse events (AEs) due to PCT or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) leading to deterioration of a patient’s physical condition could limit the ability to tolerate surgery. This is particularly relevant, as previously reported incidences of severe AEs ranged from 23.8 to 37.6 % [6, 7]. Thus, there are concerns that PCT or PCRT could increase postoperative morbidity [11]. Although postoperative morbidity after PCT or PCRT has been previously reported to be similar to that noted with surgery alone [6, 7, 12], to our knowledge, no previous studies have addressed the issue of whether preoperative AEs increase the likelihood or severity of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between preoperative AEs and postoperative complications in patients who underwent gastrectomy for AGC or MGC after receiving PCT or PCRT.

Methods

Patients

Patients were eligible for inclusion in this study if they had histologically-proven primary AGC or MGC, received initial PCT or PCRT, and underwent gastrectomy plus lymphadenectomy at Severance Hospital of Yonsei University between January 2010 and December 2013. The exclusion criteria included the presence of organ dysfunction before initial PCT or PCRT and surgery performed on an emergency basis. No comparative analysis was made to gastric cancer patient undergoing gastrectomy plus lymphadenectomy who did not receive initial PCT or PCRT. The clinical-pathological characteristics and laboratory investigations were retrieved from electronic medical records. The times for which data were collected are illustrated in Fig. 1. The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine (4-2011-0991).
Fig. 1

Study flow diagram. PCT, preoperative chemotherapy; PCRT, preoperative chemoradiotherapy

The regimens for PCT or PCRT varied from single-agent to triple-agent, they involved the use of fluorouracil, platinum, taxanes, and/or irinotecan. Intensity modulated radiation was performed using a dose of 40–45 Gy for PCRT. Since all patients received at least one type of fluorouracil-based regimen, we classified the chemotherapy regimens as platinum-containing, taxane-containing, containing both platinum and taxane, and others.

The operations included radical and palliative surgeries. As described in the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines Version 3.0 [13], radical gastrectomy included resection of at least two-thirds of the stomach and peri-gastric lymphadenectomy with D2 extension. Palliative gastrectomy included resection of the entire gastric lesion or total gastrectomy plus lymphadenectomy with at least D1 extension.

Baseline and preoperative evaluations

The time point definitions for baseline and preoperative evaluations were the most recent time before the initiation of PCT or PCRT and the surgery (after the final cycle) respectively. The laboratory investigations were collected for evaluations and included 3 categories of routine blood tests:
  1. (1)

     Complete blood count: hemoglobin, white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet.

     
  2. (2)

     Hepatorenal function: albumin, alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, and serum creatinine.

     
  3. (3)

     Coagulation function: activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin, and international normalized ratio.

     

Additionally, we determined the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI), to evaluate the systemic inflammatory and nutritional status. Preoperatively, C-reactive protein was also recorded, and Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and Prognostic Index (PI) were rated. All these values and factors were calculated and rated as described previously [14].

Preoperative adverse events evaluation

Only the AEs based on objective laboratory investigations were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.03 [15], and they were anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, increased transaminase, and increased serum creatinine. The grade was determined by the highest CTCAE grade for each event, and the “Total AEs” grade referred to the highest CTCAE grade for all AEs in the study. Furthermore, AEs within 30 days before surgery were evaluated in an attempt to identify correlations between abnormal physical conditions in the month prior to surgery and postoperative complications.

Postoperative complications evaluation

Postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) grading system [16]. In our study, pulmonary-related complications included atelectasis, pleural effusion, or pneumonia, and infection-related complications consisted of gastrointestinal (GI) tract leakage, abdominal abscess, wound infection, pneumonia, or pyelonephritis. Patients with a temperature >38.5° centigrade and in whom other complications were subsequently excluded were diagnosed with an “unexplained fever”, which was classified as a grade 1 complication. The patients were assigned to one of the following three groups based on the severity of postoperative complications: no complications (CD0 group); grade 1 or 2 complications (CD1/2 group); and grade 3 or 4 complications (CD3/4 group).

Statistical analyses

Nominal data are presented as number (percentage), scale data are presented as median (range), and AEs and complications are presented as number (incidence). Differences in nominal data and AEs among groups were detected by Chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests and differences in scale data among groups were detected by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlation analyses between CD grades and ordinal data, including CTCAE grades, GPS, and PI, were performed by Spearman’s correlation tests. A P value less than 0.05 (two-sided) was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed with SPSS® version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Clinical-pathological characteristics

A total of 115 patients were included in this study. There were 74 males (64.3 %) and 41 females (35.7 %). The majority of patients received PCT, whereas only 23 patients (20.0 %) received PCRT. The postoperative stay differed among the three groups (P < 0.001). PCT or PCRT consisted of a median of 5.0 (1.0–21.0) cycles, and there were no significant differences among groups regarding other treatment-related parameters (Table 1). The operations primarily involved open surgery, total gastrectomy, radical resection, and D2 lymphadenectomy. Only estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.017) and intra/postoperative transfusion rate (P < 0.001) were significantly different among groups (Table 2).
Table 1

Clinical characteristics and preoperative treatmentsa

 

CD0 group (n = 61)

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

Total (n = 115)

P Value

Ageb (year)

56.0 (27.0–78.0)

56.0 (26.0–76.0)

58.5 (41.0–75.0)

56.0 (26.0–78.0)

0.467

Gender

    

0.452

     Male

36 (59.0)

31 (70.5)

7 (70.0)

74 (64.3)

 

     Female

25 (41.0)

13 (29.5)

3 (30.0)

41 (35.7)

 

BMI before surgeryb (kg/m2)

21.9 (17.3–30.7)

23.1 (17.1–32.4)

21.1 (16.9–29.0)

22.3 (16.9–32.4)

0.272

Tumor location

    

0.109

     Proximal one-third

12 (19.7)

21 (47.7)

2 (20.0)

35 (30.4)

 

     Middle one-third

18 (29.5)

8 (18.2)

3 (30.0)

29 (25.2)

 

     Distal one-third

23 (37.7)

12 (27.3)

4 (40.0)

39 (33.9)

 

     Whole

8 (13.1)

3 (6.8)

1 (10.0)

12 (10.4)

 

Preoperative treatment

    

0.881

     PCT

50 (82.0)

34 (77.3)

8 (80.0)

92 (80.0)

 

     PCRT

11 (18.0)

10 (22.7)

2 (20.0)

23 (20.0)

 

     Cyclesb

5.0 (2.0–20.0)

7.0 (2.0–19.0)

7.5 (2.0–21.0)

5.0 (2.0–21.0)

0.082

     Durationb (month)

3.1 (1.2–15.6)

4.5 (1.2–18.0)

5.4 (1.2–15.2)

3.6 (1.2–18.0)

0.061

     Interval timeb (month)

1.1 (0.4–5.7)

1.0 (0.4–4.5)

1.2 (0.5–2.4)

1.1 (0.4–5.7)

0.167

Chemotherapy regimen

    

0.922

     Platinum-containing

38 (62.3)

25 (56.8)

8 (80.0)

71 (61.7)

 

     Taxane-containing

7 (11.5)

6 (13.6)

1 (10.0)

14 (12.2)

 

     Containing both platinum and taxane

14 (23.0)

11 (25.0)

1 (10.0)

26 (22.6)

 

     Others

2 (3.3)

2 (4.5)

0 (0.0)

4 (3.5)

 

Postoperative hospital stayb (day)

8.0 (5.0–12.0)

10.0 (7.0–27.0)

19.0 (11.0–29.0)

9.0 (5.0–29.0)

<0.001

BMI body mass index, PCRT preoperative chemoradiotherapy, PCT, preoperative chemotherapy

aData are presented as number (percentage) unless indicated otherwise

bData are presented as median (range)

Table 2

Surgical and pathological characteristics a

 

CD0 group (n = 61)

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

Total (n = 115)

P Value

Surgical type

    

0.672

     Open

55 (90.2)

42 (95.5)

9 (90.0)

106 (92.2)

 

     MIS

6 (9.8)

2 (4.5)

1 (10.0)

9 (7.8)

 

Gastrectomy

    

0.219

     Subtotal

31 (50.8)

15 (34.1)

5 (50.0)

51 (44.3)

 

     Total

30 (49.2)

29 (65.9)

5 (50.0)

64 (55.7)

 

Surgical radicality

    

0.802

     Radical

37 (60.7)

29 (65.9)

7 (70.0)

73 (63.5)

 

     Palliative

24 (39.3)

15 (34.1)

3 (30.0)

42 (36.5)

 

Lymphadenectomy

    

0.504

     D2

47 (77.0)

31 (70.5)

8 (80.0)

86 (74.8)

 

     D1 plus

13 (21.3)

10 (22.7)

1 (10.0)

24 (20.9)

 

     D1

1 (1.6)

3 (6.8)

1 (10.0)

5 (4.3)

 

Combined resection

    

0.592

     Yes

12 (19.7)

7 (15.9)

3 (30.0)

22 (19.1)

 

     No

49 (80.3)

37 (84.1)

7 (70.0)

93 (80.9)

 

EBLb (mL)

95 (28–300)

126 (30–609)

269 (50–640)

100 (28–640)

0.017

Transfusion

    

<0.001

     Yes

0 (0.0)

17 (38.6)

1 (10.0)

18 (15.7)

 

     No

61 (100.0)

27 (61.4)

9 (90.0)

97 (84.3)

 

Borrmann type

    

0.524

     I

6 (9.8)

2 (4.5)

2 (20.0)

10 (8.7)

 

     II

12 (19.7)

10 (22.7)

1 (10.0)

23 (20.0)

 

     III

32 (52.5)

20 (45.5)

6 (60.0)

58 (50.4)

 

     IV

11 (18.0)

12 (27.3)

1 (10.0)

24 (20.9)

 

Lauren type

    

0.569

     Intestinal

30 (49.2)

23 (52.3)

6 (60.0)

59 (51.3)

 

     Diffuse

26 (42.6)

18 (40.9)

2 (20.0)

46 (40.0)

 

     Mixed

5 (8.2)

3 (6.8)

2 (20.0)

10 (8.7)

 

TNM Stage

    

0.846

     yp 0

4 (6.6)

1 (2.3)

1 (10.0)

6 (5.2)

 

     yp Ia-Ib

14 (23.0)

7 (15.9)

1 (10.0)

22 (19.1)

 

     yp IIa-IIb

6 (9.8)

6 (13.6)

2 (20.0)

14 (12.2)

 

     yp IIIa-IIIc

15 (24.6)

15 (34.1)

3 (30.0)

33 (28.7)

 

     yp IV

22 (36.1)

15 (34.1)

3 (30.0)

40 (34.8)

 

EBL, Estimated blood loss; MIS, Minimal invasive surgery

aData are presented as number (percentage) unless indicated otherwise

bData are presented as median (range)

Incidence and type of preoperative adverse events

Overall, the incidence rates for AEs during PCT or PCRT were as follows (in descending order): anemia (89.6 %, 103/115), lymphocytopenia (81.7 %, 94/115), neutropenia (80 %, 92/115), leukopenia (67.8 %, 78/115), increased transaminase (40.9 %, 47/115), thrombocytopenia (32.2 %, 37/115), febrile neutropenia (19.1 %, 22/115), and increased serum creatinine (6.1 %, 7/115). The total AEs incidence was 99.1 % (114/115). For serious AEs classified as CTCAE grade 3/4, the incidence rates were as follows (in descending order): neutropenia (47.0 %, 54/115), leukopenia (28.7 %, 33/115), anemia (19.1 %, 22/115), lymphocytopenia (16.5, 19/115), febrile neutropenia (12.2 %, 14/115), and thrombocytopenia (4.3 %, 5/115). The total serious AEs incidence was 61.7 % (71/115). The distributions of AE severity (ratios of grade 0, grade 1/2, and grade 3/4) were comparable among groups (Table 3).
Table 3

Incidence of AEs during PCT or PCRT according to CTCAE and Clavien-Dindo gradesa

 

CD0 group (n = 61)

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

Total (n = 115)

P Value

Anemia

    

0.099

     Grade 0

6 (5.2)

6 (5.2)

0 (0.0)

12 (10.4)

 

     Grade 1/2

48 (41.7)

27 (23.5)

6 (5.2)

81 (70.4)

 

     Grade 3/4

7 (6.1)

11 (9.6)

4 (3.5)

22 (19.1)

 

Leukopenia

   

0.326

     Grade 0

24 (20.9)

9 (7.8)

4 (3.5)

37 (32.2)

 

     Grade 1/2

21 (18.3)

21 (18.3)

3 (2.6)

45 (39.1)

 

     Grade 3/4

16 (13.9)

14 (12.2)

3 (2.6)

33 (28.7)

 

Neutropenia

   

0.244

     Grade 0

16 (13.9)

4 (3.5)

3 (2.6)

23 (20.0)

 

     Grade 1/2

19 (16.5)

16 (13.9)

3 (2.6)

38 (33.0)

 

     Grade 3/4

26 (22.6)

24 (20.9)

4 (3.5)

54 (47.0)

 

Febrile neutropenia

   

0.829

     Grade 0

49 (42.6)

35 (30.4)

9 (7.8)

93 (80.9)

 

     Grade 3/4

12 (10.4)

9 (7.8)

1 (0.9)

22 (19.1)

 

Lymphocytopenia

   

0.748

     Grade 0

10 (8.7)

9 (7.8)

2 (1.7)

21 (18.3)

 

     Grade 1/2

41 (35.7)

29 (25.2)

5 (4.3)

75 (65.2)

 

     Grade 3/4

10 (8.7)

6 (5.2)

3 (2.6)

19 (16.5)

 

Thrombocytopenia

   

0.798

     Grade 0

39 (33.9)

26 (22.6)

8 (7.0)

73 (63.5)

 

     Grade 1/2

19 (16.5)

16 (13.9)

2 (1.7)

37 (32.2)

 

     Grade 3/4

3 (2.6)

2 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

5 (4.3)

 

Increased ALT/AST

 

0.718

     Grade 0

34 (29.6)

28 (24.3)

6 (5.2)

68 (59.1)

 

     Grade 1/2

27 (23.5)

16 (13.9)

4 (3.5)

47 (40.9)

 

Increased Scr

   

1.000

     Grade 0

58 (50.4)

41 (35.7)

9 (7.8)

108 (93.9)

 

     Grade 1/2

3 (2.6)

3 (2.6)

1 (0.9)

7 (6.1)

 

Total AEs

 

0.138

     Grade 0

0 (0.0)

1 (0.9)

0 (0.0)

1 (0.9)

 

     Grade 1/2

29 (25.2)

11 (9.6)

3 (2.6)

43 (37.4)

 

     Grade 3/4

32 (27.8)

32 (27.8)

7 (6.1)

71 (61.7)

 

AEs adverse events, ALT alanine transaminase, AST aspartate transaminase, CTCAE common terminology criteria for adverse events, PCRT preoperative chemoradiotherapy, PCT preoperative chemotherapy, Scr serum creatinine

aData are presented as number (incidence)

For AEs within 30 days before surgery, the AE incidence rates were as follows (in descending order): anemia (67.0 %, 77/115), lymphocytopenia (51.3 %, 59/115), neutropenia (37.4 %, 43/115), leukopenia (34.8 %, 40/115), and thrombocytopenia (23.5 %, 27/115). The total AEs incidence was 80.0 % (92/115), including a 16.5 % (19/115) incidence of grade 3/4 AEs. The distributions of AE severity (ratios of grade 0, grade 1/2, and grade 3/4) did not differ among groups (Table 4).
Table 4

Incidence of AEs within 30 days before surgery according to CTCAE and Clavien-Dindo gradesa

 

CD0 group (n = 61)

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

Total (n = 115)

P Value

Anemia

    

0.724

     Grade 0

23 (20.0)

13 (11.3)

2 (1.7)

38 (33.0)

 

     Grade 1/2

36 (31.3)

30 (26.1)

8 (7.0)

74 (64.3)

 

     Grade 3/4

2 (1.7)

1 (0.9)

0 (0.0)

3 (2.6)

 

Leukopenia

   

0.196

     Grade 0

38 (33.0)

27 (23.5)

10 (8.7)

75 (65.2)

 

     Grade 1/2

19 (16.5)

15 (13.0)

0 (0.0)

34 (29.6)

 

     Grade 3/4

4 (3.5)

2 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

6 (5.2)

 

Neutropenia

   

0.740

     Grade 0

38 (33.0)

26 (22.6)

8 (7.0)

72 (62.6)

 

     Grade 1/2

16 (13.9)

12 (10.4)

2 (1.7)

30 (26.1)

 

     Grade 3/4

7 (6.1)

6 (5.2)

0 (0.0)

13 (11.3)

 

Lymphocytopenia

   

0.720

     Grade 0

31 (27.0)

19 (16.5)

6 (5.2)

56 (48.7)

 

     Grade 1/2

27 (23.5)

24 (20.9)

4 (3.5)

55 (47.8)

 

     Grade 3/4

3 (2.6)

1 (0.9)

0 (0.0)

4 (3.5)

 

Thrombocytopenia

   

0.577

     Grade 0

45 (39.1)

34 (29.6)

9 (7.8)

88 (76.5)

 

     Grade 1/2

16 (13.9)

10 (8.7)

1 (0.9)

27 (23.5)

 

Total AEs

 

0.421

     Grade 0

14 (12.2)

8 (7.0)

1 (0.9)

23 (20.0)

 

     Grade 1/2

36 (31.3)

28 (24.3)

9 (7.8)

73 (63.5)

 

     Grade 3/4

11 (9.6)

8 (7.0)

0 (0.0)

19 (16.5)

 

AEs adverse events, CTCAE common terminology criteria for adverse events

aData are presented as number (incidence)

Incidence and type of postoperative complications

There was no postoperative mortality, and the morbidity rate was 47.0 % (54/115). The most frequent complication was pulmonary-related complications, the most common minor complications (CD1/2) were pulmonary-related complications and transfusion, and the most common serious complication (CD3/4) was GI tract leakage/abscess (Table 5).
Table 5

Postoperative complicationsa

 

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

Totalb (n = 115)

Non-surgery-related

     Pulmonary-related

17 (14.8)

3 (2.6)

20 (17.4)

     Deep vein thrombus

1 (0.9)

0 (0.0)

1 (0.9)

     Unexplained fever

7 (6.1)

0 (0.0)

7 (6.1)

     Transfusion

17 (14.8)

1 (0.9)

18 (15.7)

     Othersc

3 (2.6)

1 (0.9)

4 (3.5)

Surgery-related

     Wound discharge/infection

5 (4.3)

2 (1.7)

7 (6.1)

     Intestinal obstruction

3 (2.6)

1 (0.9)

4 (3.5)

     Fluid collection

9 (7.8)

1 (0.9)

10 (8.7)

     Gastrointestinal tract leakage/abscess

1 (0.9)

6 (5.2)

7 (6.1)

Complication type

     Not infection-related

26 (22.6)

3 (2.6)

29 (25.2)

     Infection-related

12 (10.4)

7 (6.1)

19 (16.5)

Clavien-Dindo grade

   

     Grade 1

15 (13.0)

NA

15 (13.0)

     Grade 2

29 (25.2)

NA

29 (25.2)

     Grade 3

NA

8 (7.0)

8 (7.0)

     Grade 4

NA

2 (1.7)

2 (1.7)

NA not applicable

aData are presented as number (incidence)

bIncluded 61 patients in CD0 group

cIncluded pyelonephritis, hydronephrosis, re-admission for nutrition support, and renal dysfunction

Correlation analyses of preoperative adverse events and postoperative complications

Correlation analyses were performed between the CTCAE grade of AEs during PCT or PRCT and the CD grade of postoperative complications using Spearman’s correlation tests. The results revealed no correlations between the two grading systems (Fig. 2). Similarly, no correlations were noted when comparing the CTCAE grades of AEs within 30 days before operation and the CD grade of postoperative complications (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2

Stacked percentage bar charts for AEs during PCT and PCRT. AEs, adverse events; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; PCRT, preoperative chemoradiotherapy; PCT, preoperative chemotherapy; Scr serum creatinine. Correlation analysis was performed by Spearman’s correlation test. The charts from a-i refer to the stacked percentage for anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, increased AST/ALT, increased Scr, and total AEs respectively

Fig. 3

Stacked percentage bar charts for AEs within 30 Days before surgery. AEs, adverse events; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; PCRT, preoperative chemoradiotherapy; PCT, preoperative chemotherapy. Correlation analysis was performed by Spearman’s correlation test. The charts from a-f refer to the stacked percentage for anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and total AEs respectively

Differences in laboratory tests, inflammation-based prognostic scores, and nutrition index

During baseline and preoperative evaluations, all laboratory test results were comparable among groups, with no statistically significant differences. Similarly, the NLR, PLR, and PNI at baseline and preoperatively failed to exhibit significant differences among groups. According to Spearman’s correlation tests, neither the preoperative GPS nor PI was correlated with the postoperative complications CD grade (Table 6).
Table 6

Differences in laboratory tests, inflammation-based prognostic scores, and nutrition index according to Clavien-Dindo gradesa

 

CD0 group (n = 61)

CD1/2 group (n = 44)

CD3/4 group (n = 10)

P Value

Baseline

     HB (g/L)

129 (66–155)

121 (64–170)

112 (72–159)

0.284

     WBC (×109/L)

5.9 (3.6–13.9)

6.4 (3.6–14.2)

8.1 (3.9–10.2)

0.109

     NEU (×109/L)

3.6 (2.2–10.9)

3.9 (2.0–11.7)

4.8 (1.4–7.7)

0.136

     LYM (×109/L)

1.7 (0.7–3.1)

1.8 (0.6–3.0)

2.0 (1.4–2.4)

0.238

     PLT (×109/L)

298.0 (96.0–639.0)

295.0 (141.0–599.0)

301.5 (166.0–438.0)

0.784

     ALB (g/L)

42.0 (35.0–49.0)

41.0 (28.0–47.0)

39.0 (25.0–48.0)

0.631

     ALT (U/L)

14.0 (5.0–75.0)

14.5 (5.0–58.0)

13.0 (7.0–59.0)

0.888

     AST (U/L)

17.0 (10.0–56.0)

15.0 (8.0–73.0)

19.5 (10.0–37.0)

0.473

     ALP (U/L)

56.0 (24.0–109.0)

59.5 (25.0–123.0)

71.5 (31.0–99.0)

0.137

     Scr (mg/dL)

0.82 (0.48–1.20)

0.86 (0.53–1.28)

0.81 (0.68–1.59)

0.593

     aPTT (second)

29.8 (23.0–37.2)

29.6 (24.9–38.6)

28.6 (24.9–33.1)

0.315

     PT (second)

10.9 (9.3–12.8)

11.0 (9.0–13.1)

11.1 (9.5–12.7)

0.765

     INR

0.96 (0.82–1.12)

0.97 (0.79–1.16)

0.98 (0.84–1.11)

0.883

     PNI

50.2 (40.4–61.8)

50.6 (34.2–60.0)

49.7 (33.0–60.2)

0.954

     NLR

2.5 (0.7–6.6)

2.2 (1.0–9.5)

2.4 (0.7–7.8)

0.805

     PLR

181.9 (67.6–557.7)

179.1 (73.8–487.0)

171.1 (78.3–256.9)

0.683

Preoperative

     HB (g/L)

116 (86–152)

115 (76–160)

117 (91–125)

0.810

     WBC (×109/L)

4.7 (2.3–11.7)

4.7 (2.7–11.9)

5.8 (3.0–9.7)

0.598

     NEU (×109/L)

2.7 (0.7–8.8)

2.6 (1.2–9.1)

3.0 (1.5–7.8)

0.755

     LYM (×109/L)

1.5 (0.5–3.4)

1.6 (0.4–2.7)

1.3 (0.6–2.9)

0.835

     PLT (×109/L)

218.0 (73.0–398.0)

202.0 (91.0–583.0)

216.5 (167.0–276.0)

0.861

     ALB (g/L)

40.0 (27.0–48.0)

39.5 (26.0–52.0)

39.0 (32.0–41.0)

0.541

     ALT (U/L)

17.0 (6.0–72.0)

14.0 (6.0–52.0)

15.5 (11.0–43.0)

0.431

     AST (U/L)

20.0 (12.0–75.0)

19.0 (11.0–42.0)

19.0 (12.0–42.0)

0.671

     ALP (U/L)

61.5 (21.0–142.0)

59.5 (25.0–106.0)

63.5 (35.0–163.0)

0.887

     Scr (mg/dL)

0.78 (0.43–1.39)

0.78 (0.38–1.55)

0.75 (0.63–1.34)

0.874

     aPTT (second)

29.9 (24.2–41.5)

29.7 (20.7–37.5)

31.0 (26.1–34.6)

0.979

     PT (second)

10.5 (9.4–13.1)

10.9 (9.4–13.4)

10.5 (9.6–11.7)

0.196

     INR

0.93 (0.83–1.15)

0.97 (0.83–1.18)

0.94 (0.85–1.01)

0.147

     CRPb (mg/L)

1.1 (0.3–51.1)

1.3 (0.4–68.6)

1.8 (0.5–13.9)

0.502

     PNI

46.8 (30.5–59.9)

46.0 (33.2–62.1)

45.4 (37.2–54.3)

0.801

     NLR

1.7 (0.6–9.6)

1.9 (0.6–9.7)

2.0 (0.8–10.1)

0.811

     PLR

134.6 (38.2–574.1)

123.4 (44.7–640.7)

148.3 (66.1–392.1)

0.714

     GPSb,c

   

0.804

          Score 0

43 (81.1)

30 (76.9)

7 (87.5)

 

          Score 1

8 (15.1)

6 (15.4)

0 (0.0)

 

          Score 2

2 (3.8)

3 (7.7)

1 (12.5)

 

     PIb,c

   

0.572

          Score 0

49 (92.5)

35 (89.7)

7 (87.5)

 

          Score 1

4 (7.5)

4 (10.3)

1 (12.5)

 

ALB, albumin; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine transaminase; aPTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; AST, aspartate transaminase; CRP, C-reactive protein; GPS, Glasgow Prognostic Score; HB, hemoglobin; INR, international normalized ratio; LYM, lymphocyte count; NEU, neutrophil count; NLR, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio; PI, Prognostic Index; PLR, platelet–lymphocyte ratio; PLT, platelet count; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; PT, prothrombin; Scr, serum creatinine; WBC, white blood cell count

aData are presented as median (range) unless indicated otherwise

bData retrieved from 100 patients, including 53 patients in CD0 group, 39 patients in CD1/2 group, and 8 patients in CD3/4 group

cData are presented as number (percentage)

Discussion

In this retrospective study, we focused on the relationship between preoperative AEs and postoperative complications in patients with AGC or MGC who received PCT or PCRT. The incidence of both total AEs and total serious AEs were extremely high compared to previous studies [6, 7, 17]. The 5.0 median cycles of PCT or PCRT in our study may have contributed to this discrepancy, as it is reasonable to expect a higher incidence of AEs in our population who received extensive preoperative treatment. Even in the time period very close to surgery (within 30 days before surgery), we observed a relatively high incidence of total AEs. The AEs associated with PCT or PCRT would definitely negatively affect a patient’s physical condition, which may subsequently influence the postoperative course; thus, concerns have arisen about the safety of performing gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for such vulnerable patients.

A correlation between poor physical status and postoperative morbidity was previously reported by Jung et al. [18], who indicated that patients with preoperative anemia had a higher morbidity rate after radical gastrectomy than patients without. By contrast, the CTCAE grades for AEs in our study did not correlate with postoperative CD grades. A similar result was reported by Reim et al. [19], who noted that preoperative leukopenia due to neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no significant effect on postoperative complications after total gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy. However, because there were many discrepancies in patient selection, evaluation criteria, surgical procedures, and diagnostic standards among the previous studies, it was difficult to make definitive conclusions from these studies. The results of our current study can reduce concerns regarding the safety of surgery after PCT or PCRT, but they cannot eliminate them. A well-designed clinical trial is required to provide firm conclusions regarding this issue.

In previous studies, postoperative morbidity rates after gastrectomy plus lymphadenectomy varied from 25.7 to 45.7 % in patients who underwent PCT or PCRT [6, 7, 11, 12]. The morbidity rate of 47.0 % in our study is relatively high but still comparable to the rate noted in a previous report from our institute [11]. In the present study, a high percentage of patients had stage IV cancer and underwent total gastrectomy and combined resection, which suggests that their surgery was more complicated. Postoperative morbidity may have been increased for this reason. It should be noted that the most common minor (CD1/2) complication in our study was pulmonary-related complications, a type of non-surgery-related complications. It is quite possible that these complications were related to a poor physical status of patients after PCT or PCRT. Additionally, the relatively low incidence of serious (CD3/4) complications (8.7 %) highlights the advantage of performing such complex surgery in a high-volume center.

Higher intraoperative blood loss and operative transfusion rates were previously reported to correlate with postoperative morbidity after gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy [11, 20]. In terms of CD grades, we found significant differences among groups for EBL and transfusion rates. Patients with greater CD grades had a greater EBL. In the CD grading system, transfusion is classified as a grade 2 morbidity, which was why the transfusion rate was highest in our CD1/2 group. Generally, a higher blood loss reflects increased surgical difficulty and correlates with a higher transfusion rate. For the same level of surgical complexity, gastrectomy could be more difficult in patients who received PCT or PCRT because of peri-tumoral fibrosis, edema, or a bulky tumor mass. These factors are known to increase the need for surgical technique and experience. Independent of other factors related to postoperative morbidity, the surgical technique and quality are definitely crucial determinants of outcome. Meticulous manipulations during surgery should reduce trauma, operative blood loss, and ultimately morbidity.

In recent years, certain factors derived from routine laboratory investigations have been reported to manifest prognostic values in predicting the outcomes for patients with AGC and MGC. These factors include white blood cell and neutrophil counts, NLR, PLR, GPS, and PNI [14, 21, 22]. Importantly, Jiang et al. [23] reported that the severity of postoperative complication could influence the survival time for patients with gastric cancer, thereby suggesting the possibility of a direct link between the severity of postoperative morbidity and long-term prognostic factors. However, in our study, all laboratory findings, inflammation-based prognostic scores, and PNI did not differ among groups. The discrepancy is quite possibly because of the PCT or PCRT, as the baseline parameters no longer represented the patient’s actual preoperative status, and the preoperative parameters could have been altered to varying degrees. Therefore, the above factors do not appear to be useful for predicting the postoperative morbidity for patients who received PCT or PCRT.

Limitations of this study include the relatively small number of patients and the natural drawbacks associated with all retrospective studies. There was substantial heterogeneity among patients and interventions. Firstly, patients with serious preoperative AEs tended to be under intensive clinical observations and may have received therapeutic interventions, which may have influenced postoperative morbidity. Secondly, the extent of surgery differed among patients. The surgical extent itself can influence postoperative morbidity, and should be well defined in a future study. Thirdly, the PCT and PCRT had different systemic and local effects, and each specific regimen also had unique toxicities. The variable treatments and regimens may have led to differing physiological alterations, even under the same AE grade. Fourthly, there were a number of patients who received preoperative treatment with PCT or PCRT but failed to subsequently proceed on to surgery. Data regarding the exact number of these patients nor the reasons why they did not subsequently proceed on to surgery was not included within the current study analysis. Therefore, had these individuals proceeded on to surgery after receiving preoperative treatment with PCT or PCRT, the observed degree and severity of postoperative complications that occurred in the overall study group could have been substantially different. However, there is no realistic way for us to make any such inferences into how preoperative AEs in this particular group of patients may have impacted upon the overall postoperative complications observed in the entire study group if this group of patients had theoretically proceeded on to surgery. Lastly, despite the limitations of our study, it is our belief that our use of both the CTCAE system for classifying AEs and the CD grading system for classifying postoperative complications allowed for minimizing any subjectivity to the analysis process of the data included within the current study.

Conclusions

In summary, for patients with AGC and MGC who underwent gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy, this study provided supportive evidence favoring the use of PCT or PCRT. The CTCAE grades of preoperative AEs did not correlate with the CD grades of postoperative complications. The higher EBL and transfusion rate noted in patients with complications emphasize the importance of meticulous manipulations during surgery to reduce postoperative morbidity.

Notes

Abbreviations

AEs: 

Adverse events

AGC: 

Advanced gastric cancer

BMI: 

Body mass index

CD: 

Clavien-Dindo

CTCAE: 

Common terminology criteria for adverse events

EBL: 

Estimated blood loss

GI: 

Gastrointestinal

GPS: 

Glasgow prognostic score

MGC: 

Metastatic gastric cancer

MIS: 

Minimal invasive surgery

NA: 

Not applicable

NLR: 

Neutrophil lymphocyte ratio

PCRT: 

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy

PCT: 

Preoperative chemotherapy

PI: 

Prognostic index

PLR: 

Platelet lymphocyte ratio

PNI: 

Prognostic nutritional index

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (1020390, 1320360). The authors thank Prof. Jiafu Ji for promoting the collaboration between Severance Hospital of Yonsei University and Peking University School of Oncology.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine
(2)
Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute
(3)
Department of Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine
(4)
Department of Gastric Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
(5)
Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Wu CW, Hsiung CA, Lo SS, Hsieh MC, Chen JH, Li AFY, et al. Nodal dissection for patients with gastric cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(4):309–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EMK, Sasako M, van de Velde CJH. Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(5):439–49.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sasako M, Sakuramoto S, Katai H, Kinoshita T, Furukawa H, Yamaguchi T, et al. Five-year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(33):4387–93.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Noh SH, Park SR, Yang HK, Chung HC, Chung IJ, Kim SW, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1389–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van de Velde CJ, Nicolson M, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ychou M, Boige V, Pignon JP, Conroy T, Bouche O, Lebreton G, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1715–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, Hundahl SA, Estes NC, Stemmermann GN, et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(10):725–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Schildberg CW, Croner R, Merkel S, Schellerer V, Muller V, Yedibela S, et al. Outcome of operative therapy of hepatic metastatic stomach carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. World J Surg. 2012;36(4):872–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Saito M, Kiyozaki H, Takata O, Suzuki K, Rikiyama T. Treatment of stage IV gastric cancer with induction chemotherapy using S-1 and cisplatin followed by curative resection in selected patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:406.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. An JY, Kim KM, Kim YM, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Noh SH. Surgical complications in gastric cancer patients preoperatively treated with chemotherapy: their risk factors and clinical relevance. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(8):2452–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujitani K, Ajani JA, Crane CH, Feig BW, Pisters PW, Janjan N, et al. Impact of induction chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy on operative morbidity and mortality in patients with locoregional adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(7):2010–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):113–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-011-0042-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Li QQ, Lu ZH, Yang L, Lu M, Zhang XT, Li J, et al. Neutrophil count and the inflammation-based glasgow prognostic score predict survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(2):945–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. National Cancer Institute. Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) Version 4.0.3. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2010.
  16. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Tsuburaya A, Mizusawa J, Tanaka Y, Fukushima N, Nashimoto A, Sasako M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 and cisplatin followed by D2 gastrectomy with para-aortic lymph node dissection for gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis. Br J Surg. 2014;101(6):653–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung DH, Lee HJ, Han DS, Suh YS, Kong SH, Lee KU, et al. Impact of perioperative hemoglobin levels on postoperative outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2013;16(3):377–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Reim D, Huser N, Humberg D, Novotny A, Assfalg V, Matevossian E, et al. Preoperative clinically inapparent leucopenia in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer is not a risk factor for surgical or general postoperative complications. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(4):321–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishino Y, Saigusa S, Ohi M, Yasuda H, Tanaka K, Toiyama Y, et al. Preoperative C-reactive protein and operative blood loss predict poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2014;7(4):287–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Migita K, Takayama T, Saeki K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Enomoto K, et al. The prognostic nutritional index predicts long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients independent of tumor stage. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2647–54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang N, Deng JY, Liu Y, Ke B, Liu HG, Liang H. The role of preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratio in patients after radical resection for gastric cancer. Biomarkers. 2014;19(6):444–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang N, Deng JY, Ding XW, Zhang L, Liu HG, Liang YX, et al. Effect of complication grade on survival following curative gastrectomy for carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(25):8244–52.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Li et al. 2016