Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Eun Jeong Gong1, Ji Yong Ahn1, Hwoon-Yong Jung1, Hyungchul Park2, Young Bo Ko2, Hee Kyong Na1, Kee Wook Jung2, Do Hoon Kim1, Jeong Hoon Lee1, Kee Don Choi1, Ho June Song1, Gin Hyug Lee1, Jin-Ho Kim1
Correspondence to: Hwoon-Yong Jung, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea, Tel: +82-2-3010-3197, Fax: +82-2-476-0824, E-mail: hyjung@amc.seoul.kr
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gut Liver 2016;10(5):706-713. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15510
Published online April 28, 2016, Published date September 15, 2016
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
We investigated the effectiveness of From November 1995 to September 2014, 345 subjects who were diagnosed with gastric MALT lymphoma and had received eradication therapy as their first-line treatment were eligible for inclusion in this study. A retrospective review was performed using the medical records. Of the 345 patients, Eradication therapy led to CR in 57.1% of Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords:
Primary gastric marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) is a low-grade B-cell lymphoma with an indolent clinical course. Most gastric MALT lymphoma has been known to be associated with
Although the treatment strategy for
Recently, there have been reports suggesting that
From November 1995 to September 2014, subjects who were diagnosed with gastric MALT lymphoma, who finished all of the staging work-up, and who underwent only
The initial diagnosis of gastric MALT lymphoma was made on endoscopic examination and on histological assessment of gastric biopsies. The
The location of the dominant lesion was grouped as the upper third, middle third or lower third of the stomach. Macroscopic findings were classified as the superficial, ulcerative or mass forming type based on the endoscopic appearance. The clinical stage was determined based on the Ann Arbor staging system with its modifications by Musshoff and Radaszkiewicz.5 The staging work up included physical examination, computed tomography scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and bone marrow aspiration and biopsy.5,6,15 Only the subset of patients who finished all of staging work up, including the EUS, were included in the final analysis in order to clarify the clinical stages and analyze the possible effect of the depth of invasion or clinical stage on the treatment outcomes.
All patients underwent
Follow-up endoscopy with biopsies was performed 6 months after
Patients who failed to achieve CR after the eradication therapy underwent either careful observation or various additional treatments including radiation therapy, chemotherapy or surgical resection. Treatment failure was defined as when a patient did not achieve CR during the study period regardless of the degree of treatment response.
Continuous and categorical variables are presented as medians (range) and numbers (%), respectively. Differences in the clinical characteristics were determined using the Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Factors associated with remission failure were assessed using the logistic regression model, and the odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The time required to achieve CR or relapse was estimated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. The annual relapse rate was calculated as total number of relapse/cumulative observation years for all patients. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
A total of 345 patients were analyzed (Table 1). The median patient age at the time of diagnosis was 53 years (interquartile range [IQR], 45 to 60 years), and the male to female ratio was 0.77:1.
The treatment outcomes of patients with gastric MALT lymphoma after
Treatment outcomes and clinical courses according to the stage are shown in Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. 1. When comparing the CR rates after eradication therapy, there were no statistically significant differences among the stages, with a CR rate of 83.3% for stage IE1 and 74.4% for stage IE2 or above (p=0.167).
Among the 61 patients who failed to achieve CR after
During the median follow-up period of 45.6 months (IQR, 23.9 to 72.0 months), relapse was detected in 32 of 301 patients (10.6%) and the annual relapse rate was 2.4% (Supplementary Fig. 2). The median time to relapse was 11.5 months (IQR, 6.2 to 16.8 months), and relapse was detected until 46.0 months following CR. Compared with
Among 32 patients with relapse, 12 underwent additional treatment including repeated
Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the factors associated with remission failure (Table 4). Compared with the patients who did not achieve CR, age, the location in the lower third of the stomach, and the
In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of
Gastric MALT lymphoma is a low-grade, indolent lymphoma showing favorable long-term outcomes. The causative role of
To date, most studies which analyzed treatment outcomes are limited to early-stage or localized lymphoma. In this study, we included patients of all stages, and showed CR after
Various predictive factors for CR have been reported, including the stage of the lymphoma, depth of invasion, the presence of the translocation t(11;18)(q21;21), and localization in the stomach.4,8,21?23 In the present study, patient age and the
Despite the fact than
Our study has several limitations. First, being retrospective study conducted in a single referral center, a selection bias cannot be excluded. Indeed, the proportion of patients with localized stage disease was relatively lower in this study, and which may reflect a referral bias. We also included subjects who were fully evaluated prior to their treatment, including EUS examination, which might lead to a bias. Subjects who were suspected of having extensive disease based on endoscopic examination or computed tomography scan might have not undergone EUS examination. Similarly, when endoscopic features and computed tomography scan suggest localized disease, eradication therapy might be performed without EUS or bone marrow examination. Therefore, the proportion of patients in each disease stage could not be representative of the real world situation. Second, the presence of translocation t(11;18)(q21;q21), which is known to be a predictor of the treatment response of gastric MALT lymphoma, was not considered in this study. Despite these limitations, our study showed that patient age and
In conclusion, CR rate after eradication therapy was 82.3% in total, with a relatively lower rate of CR in
This work was supported by a grant from the Korean College of
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
CR, complete remission; RTx, radiation therapy; HPE,
Clinical Characteristics of the Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma
?Total (n=345)? | ? | ? | ?p-value? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age, yr | 53 (45?60) | 53 (45?60) | 52 (48?59) | 0.803 |
Male sex | 150 (43.5) | 137 (43.2) | 13 (46.4) | 0.743 |
Location | 0.005 | |||
?Upper third | 110 (31.9) | 98 (30.9) | 12 (42.9) | |
?Middle third | 147 (42.6) | 131 (41.3) | 16 (57.1) | |
?Lower third | 88 (25.5) | 88 (27.8) | 0 | |
Macroscopic findings | 0.691 | |||
?Superficial | 257 (74.5) | 237 (74.8) | 20 (71.4) | |
?Ulcerative | 83 (24.1) | 75 (23.7) | 8 (28.6) | |
?Mass forming | 5 (1.4) | 5 (1.6) | 0 | |
Depth of invasion | 0.893 | |||
?Mucosa | 220 (63.8) | 203 (64.0) | 17 (60.7) | |
?Submucosa | 110 (31.9) | 100 (31.5) | 10 (35.7) | |
?Proper muscle??? | 15 (4.3) | 14 (4.4) | 1 (3.6) | |
Stage | 0.587 | |||
?IE1 | 306 (88.7) | 282 (89.0) | 24 (85.7) | |
?IE2 | 14 (4.1) | 13 (4.1) | 1 (3.6) | |
?IIE | 6 (1.7) | 6 (1.9) | 0 | |
?IIIE | 2 (0.6) | 2 (0.6) | 0 | |
?IV | 17 (4.9) | 14 (4.4) | 3 (10.7) |
Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma according to
?Total (n=345)? | ? | ? | ?p-value? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CR after HPE | 284 (82.3) | 268 (84.5) | 16 (57.1) | 0.001 |
CR* | 301 (87.2) | 280 (88.3) | 21 (75.0) | 0.068 |
Time to CR, mo | 9.9 (7.2?15.6) | 9.8 (7.1?15.6) | 11.5 (10.0?22.3) | 0.106 |
Relapse | 32 (10.6) | 30 (10.7) | 2 (9.5) | 1.000 |
Time to relapse, mo? | 11.5 (6.2?16.8) | 11.5 (6.3?21.0) | 8.1(5.7?10.6) | 0.370 |
CR after relapse | 24/29† (82.8) | 22/27† (81.5) | 2 (100.0) | NA |
Treatment failure | 49/342† (14.3) | 42/314† (13.4) | 7 (25.0) | 0.097 |
Data are presented as number (%) or median (range).
MALT, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue; CR, complete remission; HPE,
†Two patients have not yet undergone two of the follow-up endoscopies, and one patient was lost to follow-up.
Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma according to the Disease Stage
Stage IE1 (n=306) | Stage IE2 (n=14) | Stage IIE (n=6) | Stage IIIE (n=2) | Stage IV (n=17) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR after HPE | 255 (83.3) | 10 (71.4) | 4 (66.7) | 2 (100.0) | 13 (76.5) | 0.396 |
CR* | 267 (87.3) | 12 (85.7) | 5 (83.3) | 2 (100.0) | 15 (88.2) | 0.916 |
Time to CR, mo | 9.9 (7.2?15.1) | 10.1 (5.7?17.1) | 7.2 (6.2?9.4) | 16.4 (10.6?22.2) | 15.2 (8.1?20.1) | 0.493 |
Relapse | 28 (10.5) | 1 (8.3) | 0 | 0 | 3 (20.0) | 0.667 |
Time to relapse, mo? | 10.5 (6.2?16.4) | 14.7 | NA | NA | 13.0 (10.0?29.5) | 0.479 |
CR after relapse | 21/25† (84.0) | 1 (100.0) | NA | NA | 2 (66.7) | NA |
Treatment failure | 43/303† (14.2) | 2 (14.3) | 1 (16.7) | 0 | 3 (17.6) | 0.930 |
Data are presented as number (%) or median (range).
MALT, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue; CR, complete remission; HPE,
†Two patients have not yet undergone two of the follow-up endoscopies, and one patient was lost to follow-up.
Logistic Regression Analyses of the Factors Related to Complete Remission Failure
?CR (n=301)? | ?No CR (n=44)? | ?p-value? | Multivariable analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
?OR (95% CI)? | ?p-value? | ||||
Age, yr | 52 (45?59) | 60 (52?69) | <0.001 | 1.074 (1.040?1.112) | <0.001 |
Male sex | 128 (42.5) | 22 (50.0) | 0.351 | - | - |
Location | |||||
?Upper third | 93 (30.9) | 17 (38.6) | - | - | - |
?Middle third | 125 (41.5) | 22 (50.0) | 0.914 | - | - |
?Lower third | 83 (27.6) | 5 (11.4) | 0.037 | - | - |
Endoscopic appearance | |||||
?Superficial | 220 (73.1) | 37 (84.1) | - | - | - |
?Ulcerative | 77 (25.6) | 6 (13.6) | 0.094 | - | - |
?Mass-forming | 4 (1.3) | 1 (2.3) | 0.726 | - | - |
Depth of invasion (mucosa)? | 192 (63.8) | 28 (63.6) | 0.967 | - | - |
Bone marrow involvement | 12 (4.6) | 2 (5.4) | 0.824 | - | - |
280 (93.0) | 37 (84.1) | 0.049 | 0.366 (0.144?1.018) | 0.041 |
Gut and Liver 2016; 10(5): 706-713
Published online September 15, 2016 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15510
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Eun Jeong Gong1, Ji Yong Ahn1, Hwoon-Yong Jung1, Hyungchul Park2, Young Bo Ko2, Hee Kyong Na1, Kee Wook Jung2, Do Hoon Kim1, Jeong Hoon Lee1, Kee Don Choi1, Ho June Song1, Gin Hyug Lee1, Jin-Ho Kim1
1Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to:Hwoon-Yong Jung, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea, Tel: +82-2-3010-3197, Fax: +82-2-476-0824, E-mail: hyjung@amc.seoul.kr
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
We investigated the effectiveness of From November 1995 to September 2014, 345 subjects who were diagnosed with gastric MALT lymphoma and had received eradication therapy as their first-line treatment were eligible for inclusion in this study. A retrospective review was performed using the medical records. Of the 345 patients, Eradication therapy led to CR in 57.1% of Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords:
Primary gastric marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) is a low-grade B-cell lymphoma with an indolent clinical course. Most gastric MALT lymphoma has been known to be associated with
Although the treatment strategy for
Recently, there have been reports suggesting that
From November 1995 to September 2014, subjects who were diagnosed with gastric MALT lymphoma, who finished all of the staging work-up, and who underwent only
The initial diagnosis of gastric MALT lymphoma was made on endoscopic examination and on histological assessment of gastric biopsies. The
The location of the dominant lesion was grouped as the upper third, middle third or lower third of the stomach. Macroscopic findings were classified as the superficial, ulcerative or mass forming type based on the endoscopic appearance. The clinical stage was determined based on the Ann Arbor staging system with its modifications by Musshoff and Radaszkiewicz.5 The staging work up included physical examination, computed tomography scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and bone marrow aspiration and biopsy.5,6,15 Only the subset of patients who finished all of staging work up, including the EUS, were included in the final analysis in order to clarify the clinical stages and analyze the possible effect of the depth of invasion or clinical stage on the treatment outcomes.
All patients underwent
Follow-up endoscopy with biopsies was performed 6 months after
Patients who failed to achieve CR after the eradication therapy underwent either careful observation or various additional treatments including radiation therapy, chemotherapy or surgical resection. Treatment failure was defined as when a patient did not achieve CR during the study period regardless of the degree of treatment response.
Continuous and categorical variables are presented as medians (range) and numbers (%), respectively. Differences in the clinical characteristics were determined using the Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Factors associated with remission failure were assessed using the logistic regression model, and the odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The time required to achieve CR or relapse was estimated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. The annual relapse rate was calculated as total number of relapse/cumulative observation years for all patients. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
A total of 345 patients were analyzed (Table 1). The median patient age at the time of diagnosis was 53 years (interquartile range [IQR], 45 to 60 years), and the male to female ratio was 0.77:1.
The treatment outcomes of patients with gastric MALT lymphoma after
Treatment outcomes and clinical courses according to the stage are shown in Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. 1. When comparing the CR rates after eradication therapy, there were no statistically significant differences among the stages, with a CR rate of 83.3% for stage IE1 and 74.4% for stage IE2 or above (p=0.167).
Among the 61 patients who failed to achieve CR after
During the median follow-up period of 45.6 months (IQR, 23.9 to 72.0 months), relapse was detected in 32 of 301 patients (10.6%) and the annual relapse rate was 2.4% (Supplementary Fig. 2). The median time to relapse was 11.5 months (IQR, 6.2 to 16.8 months), and relapse was detected until 46.0 months following CR. Compared with
Among 32 patients with relapse, 12 underwent additional treatment including repeated
Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the factors associated with remission failure (Table 4). Compared with the patients who did not achieve CR, age, the location in the lower third of the stomach, and the
In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of
Gastric MALT lymphoma is a low-grade, indolent lymphoma showing favorable long-term outcomes. The causative role of
To date, most studies which analyzed treatment outcomes are limited to early-stage or localized lymphoma. In this study, we included patients of all stages, and showed CR after
Various predictive factors for CR have been reported, including the stage of the lymphoma, depth of invasion, the presence of the translocation t(11;18)(q21;21), and localization in the stomach.4,8,21?23 In the present study, patient age and the
Despite the fact than
Our study has several limitations. First, being retrospective study conducted in a single referral center, a selection bias cannot be excluded. Indeed, the proportion of patients with localized stage disease was relatively lower in this study, and which may reflect a referral bias. We also included subjects who were fully evaluated prior to their treatment, including EUS examination, which might lead to a bias. Subjects who were suspected of having extensive disease based on endoscopic examination or computed tomography scan might have not undergone EUS examination. Similarly, when endoscopic features and computed tomography scan suggest localized disease, eradication therapy might be performed without EUS or bone marrow examination. Therefore, the proportion of patients in each disease stage could not be representative of the real world situation. Second, the presence of translocation t(11;18)(q21;q21), which is known to be a predictor of the treatment response of gastric MALT lymphoma, was not considered in this study. Despite these limitations, our study showed that patient age and
In conclusion, CR rate after eradication therapy was 82.3% in total, with a relatively lower rate of CR in
This work was supported by a grant from the Korean College of
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
CR, complete remission; RTx, radiation therapy; HPE,
Table 1 Clinical Characteristics of the Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma
?Total (n=345)? | ? | ? | ?p-value? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age, yr | 53 (45?60) | 53 (45?60) | 52 (48?59) | 0.803 |
Male sex | 150 (43.5) | 137 (43.2) | 13 (46.4) | 0.743 |
Location | 0.005 | |||
?Upper third | 110 (31.9) | 98 (30.9) | 12 (42.9) | |
?Middle third | 147 (42.6) | 131 (41.3) | 16 (57.1) | |
?Lower third | 88 (25.5) | 88 (27.8) | 0 | |
Macroscopic findings | 0.691 | |||
?Superficial | 257 (74.5) | 237 (74.8) | 20 (71.4) | |
?Ulcerative | 83 (24.1) | 75 (23.7) | 8 (28.6) | |
?Mass forming | 5 (1.4) | 5 (1.6) | 0 | |
Depth of invasion | 0.893 | |||
?Mucosa | 220 (63.8) | 203 (64.0) | 17 (60.7) | |
?Submucosa | 110 (31.9) | 100 (31.5) | 10 (35.7) | |
?Proper muscle??? | 15 (4.3) | 14 (4.4) | 1 (3.6) | |
Stage | 0.587 | |||
?IE1 | 306 (88.7) | 282 (89.0) | 24 (85.7) | |
?IE2 | 14 (4.1) | 13 (4.1) | 1 (3.6) | |
?IIE | 6 (1.7) | 6 (1.9) | 0 | |
?IIIE | 2 (0.6) | 2 (0.6) | 0 | |
?IV | 17 (4.9) | 14 (4.4) | 3 (10.7) |
Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).
MALT, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue;
Table 2 Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma according to
?Total (n=345)? | ? | ? | ?p-value? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CR after HPE | 284 (82.3) | 268 (84.5) | 16 (57.1) | 0.001 |
CR* | 301 (87.2) | 280 (88.3) | 21 (75.0) | 0.068 |
Time to CR, mo | 9.9 (7.2?15.6) | 9.8 (7.1?15.6) | 11.5 (10.0?22.3) | 0.106 |
Relapse | 32 (10.6) | 30 (10.7) | 2 (9.5) | 1.000 |
Time to relapse, mo? | 11.5 (6.2?16.8) | 11.5 (6.3?21.0) | 8.1(5.7?10.6) | 0.370 |
CR after relapse | 24/29† (82.8) | 22/27† (81.5) | 2 (100.0) | NA |
Treatment failure | 49/342† (14.3) | 42/314† (13.4) | 7 (25.0) | 0.097 |
Data are presented as number (%) or median (range).
MALT, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue; CR, complete remission; HPE,
†Two patients have not yet undergone two of the follow-up endoscopies, and one patient was lost to follow-up.
Table 3 Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Gastric MALT Lymphoma according to the Disease Stage
Stage IE1 (n=306) | Stage IE2 (n=14) | Stage IIE (n=6) | Stage IIIE (n=2) | Stage IV (n=17) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR after HPE | 255 (83.3) | 10 (71.4) | 4 (66.7) | 2 (100.0) | 13 (76.5) | 0.396 |
CR* | 267 (87.3) | 12 (85.7) | 5 (83.3) | 2 (100.0) | 15 (88.2) | 0.916 |
Time to CR, mo | 9.9 (7.2?15.1) | 10.1 (5.7?17.1) | 7.2 (6.2?9.4) | 16.4 (10.6?22.2) | 15.2 (8.1?20.1) | 0.493 |
Relapse | 28 (10.5) | 1 (8.3) | 0 | 0 | 3 (20.0) | 0.667 |
Time to relapse, mo? | 10.5 (6.2?16.4) | 14.7 | NA | NA | 13.0 (10.0?29.5) | 0.479 |
CR after relapse | 21/25† (84.0) | 1 (100.0) | NA | NA | 2 (66.7) | NA |
Treatment failure | 43/303† (14.2) | 2 (14.3) | 1 (16.7) | 0 | 3 (17.6) | 0.930 |
Data are presented as number (%) or median (range).
MALT, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue; CR, complete remission; HPE,
†Two patients have not yet undergone two of the follow-up endoscopies, and one patient was lost to follow-up.
Table 4 Logistic Regression Analyses of the Factors Related to Complete Remission Failure
?CR (n=301)? | ?No CR (n=44)? | ?p-value? | Multivariable analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
?OR (95% CI)? | ?p-value? | ||||
Age, yr | 52 (45?59) | 60 (52?69) | <0.001 | 1.074 (1.040?1.112) | <0.001 |
Male sex | 128 (42.5) | 22 (50.0) | 0.351 | - | - |
Location | |||||
?Upper third | 93 (30.9) | 17 (38.6) | - | - | - |
?Middle third | 125 (41.5) | 22 (50.0) | 0.914 | - | - |
?Lower third | 83 (27.6) | 5 (11.4) | 0.037 | - | - |
Endoscopic appearance | |||||
?Superficial | 220 (73.1) | 37 (84.1) | - | - | - |
?Ulcerative | 77 (25.6) | 6 (13.6) | 0.094 | - | - |
?Mass-forming | 4 (1.3) | 1 (2.3) | 0.726 | - | - |
Depth of invasion (mucosa)? | 192 (63.8) | 28 (63.6) | 0.967 | - | - |
Bone marrow involvement | 12 (4.6) | 2 (5.4) | 0.824 | - | - |
280 (93.0) | 37 (84.1) | 0.049 | 0.366 (0.144?1.018) | 0.041 |
Data are presented as median (range) or number (%).
CR, complete remission; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval;