Introduction

Oncology Letters

1792-1074 1792-1082

D.A. Spandidos

10.3892/ol.2025.14925

OL-29-4-14925

Articles

Preoperative occult vertebral fracture is a stronger predictor than osteopenia of the clinical outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Fukushima

Naoko

1 2 Masuda

Takahiro

1 Furukawa

Kenei

1 Tsuboi

Kazuto

1 2 Takahashi

Keita

1 Yuda

Masami

1 Tsunematsu

Masashi

1 Ikegami

Toru

1 Yano

Fumiaki

1 Eto

Ken

1Department of Surgery, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, Japan 2Department of Surgery, Fuji City General Hospital Fuji, Shizuoka 417-8567, Japan

Correspondence to: Dr Naoko Fukushima, Department of Surgery, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishishinbashi, Minato, Tokyo 105-8461, Japan, E-mail: naoko9037@gmail.com nishida@phar.kindai.ac.jp

04 2025

11 02 2025

29 4

179

17082024 27112024

2025

Osteopenia is a potential prognostic factor in patients with cancer. Occult vertebral fracture, the most common complication of osteopenia, has recently been associated with cancer. The present study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of occult vertebral fracture after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. The current retrospective study included 222 patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer between October 2013 and February 2023. Occult vertebral fracture was quantitatively evaluated using preoperative sagittal computed tomography images from the 11th thoracic to 5th lumbar vertebrae. Multivariate analysis showed that occult vertebral fracture (P<0.01, P=0.02, respectively), stage II or III (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively), and R1 or R2 curability (P<0.01, P=0.03, respectively) were independent and significant predictors of disease-free and overall survival rates. Additionally, patients with both occult vertebral fracture and osteopenia had significantly lower disease-free and overall survival rates than those with either osteopenia or occult vertebral fracture (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively). In conclusion, occult vertebral fracture may be considered a strong predictor of poor clinical outcomes in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

gastric cancer gastrectomy occult vertebral fracture osteopenia predictor

JPSP KAKENHI

23K16454

This research was supported by JPSP KAKENHI (grant no. 23K16454).

Introduction

The mortality rate of cancer patients has been declining annually owing to advances in diagnostics, surgery, and medications. However, the estimated number of new cases of gastric cancer (GC) exceeds one million, ranking fifth among all newly diagnosed cancers, and many patients experience recurrence after gastrectomy for GC (1). Establishing an accurate prediction of its clinical outcomes is crucial for improving the quality of life of patients with GC and reducing mortality and medical burden.

Recent research has confirmed that sarcopenia or systemic inflammatory response markers such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) or Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) can predict survival in patients with GC (2–4). Osteopenia, a condition of low bone mineral density (BMD), is associated with the progression of sarcopenia and is independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with various digestive tract cancers, including GC (5,6). Occult vertebral fracture (OVF) are the most common complications of osteopenia, and more than two-thirds of patients with this condition are incidentally diagnosed (7). Some reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of OVF in prognostic prediction in patients with colorectal liver metastasis and pancreatic cancer (8,9). However, no study has explored the correlation between OVF and the clinical outcomes of patients with GC. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of OVF in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy.

Materials and methods <sec> <title>Patients

This retrospective study included 242 patients who underwent primary gastrectomy for GC between October 2013 and February 2023 at the Fuji City General Hospital (Shizuoka, Japan). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Fuji City General Hospital (approval no. 297: Approved February 15, 2023.). The requirement for acquisition of informed consent from patients was waived because of the retrospective design of this study and anonymized data. The inclusion criteria as follows: i) Patients underwent gastrectomy with Stage I, II, III GC, ii) not applicable for endoscopic submucosal dissection, and iii) computed tomography (CT) performed within 30 days before surgery. Patients who had stage IV disease (n=16), synchronous malignant neoplasms (n=3), and underwent emergency surgery (n=1) were excluded; the remaining 222 patients were enrolled in this study.

Treatment and follow-up

The Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines, including surgical indications, treatment, and selection of chemotherapy, were used in our treatment strategy for GC (10). Staging and pathological diagnoses were based on the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (11). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin was administered to patients with bulky lymph nodes. Depending the location of the tumor, distal, total, or proximal gastrectomy was performed. Laparoscopic gastrectomy is primarily performed in patients with stage I clinical disease. In patients with clinical stage II or III disease, the attending surgeon selected between the laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. Postoperative complications were defined as grade III–V based on the Clavien-Dindo classification, occurring within 30 postoperative days (12). Patients with pathological stage II were treated with S-1 alone, and stage III were treated with S-1 alone or S-1 in combination with oxaliplatin with adjuvant chemotherapy, if the general condition was judged to be tolerated based on patients' performance status. Basic surveillance was conducted until death or 5 years post-operatively. Patients with stage I disease were followed-up every 6 months, and those with stage II or III were every 3 months to check for recurrence by performing blood tests, including those for the screening of tumor markers. Enhanced CT was performed every 6 months, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed every 1–2 years. For recurrence, systemic chemotherapy was administered based on the patient's performance status.

Definition of sarcopenia, osteopenia, and OVF

Sarcopenia, osteopenia, and OVF were preoperatively evaluated using CT. Sarcopenia was defined as psoas muscle mass area (PMA) at the third lumbar vertebra below the sex-specific median size. The PMA was calculated as follows: Length of the major axes × the length of the minor axes × π (13). Osteopenia was defined as a decrease in the BMD below the standard value. The BMD was measured by bone mineral density in the midvertebral core of the 11th thoracic vertebra. The cut-off values of BMD were evaluated based on the previous reports as follow: Men=308.82–2.49 × age in years, women=311.84–2.41 × age in years (Fig. 1A and B) (14). OVF was evaluated using the anterior (A), central (C), and posterior (P) heights of the vertebrae from the 11th thoracic vertebra to the 5th lumbar vertebra. The criteria for OVF were C/A <0.8 or C/P <0.8 in the any of the vertebrae regardless of fracture history (pathological fractures and symptomatic fractures were excluded) (Fig. 1C and D) (15).

Measurement of preoperative GPS and PNI

The GPS was defined as a combination of C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin levels. In cases where both levels were abnormal (CRP >1.0 mg/dl and albumin <3.5 g/dl), the score was 2; if one level was abnormal, the score was 1; and if neither level was abnormal, the score was 0 (16). The PNI was calculated as 10× serum albumin level (g/dl) +0.005× lymphocyte count (17).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using a statistical software program (SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 22; IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Quantitative variables are expressed as median and interquartile range, and differences were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative variables were compared using the Fisher's exact test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the survival rates, and the log-rank test was used to compare the differences between the survival rates of the groups. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify the independent prognostic factors associated with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. Variables identified as significant in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis. The continuous variables were classified into two groups. The cutoff value for CEA was set at the upper normal limit, and the cutoff values for age, PNI, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss were determined via a receiver operating characteristic curve using the survival status at the 3-year follow-up. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results <sec> <title>Patients' characteristics

The patient characteristics and associations between clinical variables and OVF are summarized in Table I. The median patient age was 74 years (range: 68–80 years). This study included 170 (77%) men. Osteopenia, sarcopenia, and OVF were observed in 68 (31%), 110 (50%), and 64 (28%) patients, respectively. The pathological diagnosis of GC showed that 91 (41%), 55 (25%), and 76 (34%) patients had stage I, II, and III cancers, respectively.

In the univariate analysis, patients with OVF were significantly associated with older age (P<0.01), operative approach (open gastrectomy, P=0.01), T factor (P<0.01), lymph node metastases (P<0.01), advanced stage (P<0.01), and adjuvant chemotherapy (P<0.01). In terms of body composition, patients with OVF had higher GPS (P=0.04) and lower BMD (P<0.01), PMA (P=0.02), and PNI (P=0.01) than those without OVF. In addition, postoperative recurrence occurred in 28 (44%) patients in the OVF group and 25 (16%) patients in the non-OVF group. Of these, 11 (17%) patients in the OVF group and 12 (8%) patients in the non-OVF group were administered with postoperative chemotherapy for recurrence.

Univariate and multivariate DFS analyses of patients with GC

Table II shows the prognostic factors for the DFS rates according to Cox proportional hazard analysis. The univariate analysis of the DFS rates indicated that osteopenia (P<0.01), sarcopenia (P<0.01), OVF (P<0.01), GPS score of 1 or 2 (P=0.02), PNI <45 (P=0.04), intraoperative blood loss ≥227 ml (P=0.01), stage ≥II (P<0.01), and R1 or R2 (P<0.01) were significant prognostic factors. The multivariate analysis revealed that OVF [hazard ratio (HR): 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30–4.27; P<0.01], stage ≥II (HR, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.36–16.01; P<0.01), and R1 or R2 (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.30–4.27; P<0.01) were independent and significant predictors of DFS.

Univariate and multivariate OS rate analyses of patients with GC

Table III shows the prognostic factors for the OS rates according to Cox proportional hazard analysis. Univariate analysis of the OS rates indicated that osteopenia (P=0.01), sarcopenia (P<0.01), OVF (P<0.01), GPS score of 1 or 2 (P<0.01), PNI <45 (P<0.01), intraoperative blood loss ≥227 ml (P<0.01), stage ≥II (P<0.01), and R1 or R2 (P<0.01) were significant prognostic factors. The multivariate analysis revealed that OVF (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.15–4.03; P=0.02), stage ≥II (HR, 5.31; 95% CI, 2.02–13.93; P<0.01), and R1 or R2 (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.47–14.35; P<0.01) were independent and significant predictors of OS.

Impact of OVF on DFS and OS after gastrectomy for GC

Patients with OVF had significantly lower DFS and OS rates than those without OVF. (DFS: 5-year survival rate, 46.0 vs. 79.8%, respectively, P<0.01; OS: 5-year survival rate, 46.7 vs. 84.4%, respectively, P<0.01) (Fig. 2). In terms of bone status, 121 (55%) patients had healthy bones, 37 (17%) had osteopenia without OVF, 33 (15%) had non-osteopenic OVF, and 31 (14%) had osteopenia with OVFs. Patients with OVF had significantly lower DFS and OS rates than those without OVF, regardless of osteopenia (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively) (Fig. 3). The 5-year mortality rates after gastrectomy were as follows: healthy bone (14.1%); osteopenia without OVF (10.8%); non-osteopenic OVF (36.4%); and osteopenia with OVF (51.6%) (Fig. 4).

Discussion

Our results showed that preoperative OVF was significantly associated with poor prognosis and recurrence in patients undergoing gastrectomy for GC. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to demonstrate the impact of OVF on mortality in patients with GC.

OVF is common and result in acute and chronic pain, reduced quality of life, and diminished lifespan (7). OVF is a public health problem, with approximately 750,000 cases occurring annually. The prevalence of OVF increased from 3% in women aged <60 years to 20% in those aged >70 years and from 7.5 to 20% in men in the same age group, increasing in prevalence with age (18). In the present study, the OVF rate was 26% in women and 29% in men, with a median age of 74. OVF is the hallmark of osteopenia, which is characterized by a low BMD and occurs at a higher incidence earlier in life than any other type of osteoporotic fractures (19). We have previously shown that osteopenia could be a prognostic factor in patients with GC (5). However, in the present study, we found that OVF, a complication of osteopenia, was a stronger predictor than osteopenia. In addition, the combination of OVF and osteopenia is associated with worse prognosis. Thus, this study identified a strong prognostic factor and is a valuable finding.

The presence of one or more OVF was estimated to increase the risk of fractures by approximately 5–10 fold. Furthermore, mortality is reported to increase by approximately 10%, 5 years after OVF (20,21). If the presence of OVF alone increases mortality, even in the absence of cancer, it can be inferred that the prognosis of patients with GC with preoperative OVF is even worse. In the current study, patients with OVF had significantly worse OS and DFS rates than those without OVF.

However, biological mechanisms underlying bone metabolism and malignancy remain unclear. Recently, it was suggested that the RANK/RANKL system may be associated with bone metabolism and cancer development. RANKL is a member of the tumor necrosis factor family that binds to its receptor RANK to control osteoclast differentiation, activation, and survival. Proinflammatory and pro-osteolytic cytokines derived from cancer cells such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, parathyroid hormone-related protein, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and IL-8 activates RANK/RANKL signaling mechanism, causing bone loss (22). Furthermore, the RANK/RANKL pathway promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition and metastasis (23). In the current study, the OVF group had more advanced disease stage (T-factor; P<0.01; lymph node metastases; P<0.01; stage, P<0.01).

Various systemic diseases, including metabolic, genetic, immune, inflammatory, and endocrine diseases, are associated with an increased risk of OVF; besides, deficiencies of vitamin D and estrogen are also one of the causes (20). Vitamin D and estrogen have been reported to be involved in the development of GC. Du et al have shown that vitamin D and its metabolites inhibit the viability, growth, and metastasis of GC cells. In addition, vitamin D metabolites may inhibit Helicobacter pylori infection and H. pylori-associated GC (24). According to recent reports, vitamin D may be involved in the anti-cancer mechanism of GC by affecting the expression of microRNAs, promoting the effects of cisplatin, and regulating intracellular signal transduction (25). Ge et al reported that estrogen receptors might be related to the progression and deterioration of GC (26). Thus, vitamin D and estrogen may be associated with the occurrence of GC and OVF; however, further research is needed to assess the relationship between GC and OVF.

The risk of bone loss after gastrectomy in patients with GC increases owing to malabsorption and malnutrition. The absorption of calcium and vitamin D is impaired because most of the stomach has been removed (27). Postoperative BMD in patients with GC after gastrectomy is decreased, and a knowledge of the presence of OVF preoperatively in patients with GC is more important than in other cancers because the conditions of patients with lower preoperative BMD are expected to be worse after gastrectomy (28). Calcium, vitamin D, and weight-bearing exercises are important for patients with osteopenia, and bisphosphonates, raloxifene, and nasal calcitonin have been shown to reduce the incidence of new OVF by 30–50% (29). OVF is often asymptomatic or underdiagnosed and under-treated (7). However, the diagnosis of OVF during routine medical care and appropriate intervention may improve the prognosis of patients with GC and OVF.

This study has several limitations. First, it was retrospective and conducted at a single institution with a small number of patients. Second, the effect of chemotherapy on recurrent cases is not reflected in the OS, which may lead to bias. Third, the definitions of sarcopenia, osteopenia, and OVF are controversial, and the cut-off values vary among studies. Fourth, we did not consider the diets rich in calcium, patients' medical histories and medications, such as vitamin D supplements and bisphosphonates. People with symptomatic fractures are excluded in the current study, however, those people have interventions such as vitamin D or bisphosphonate, and may have a good prognosis. Similarly, people with osteopenia or racial differences who have bisphosphonates or a high calcium diet may have a better prognosis. Therefore, we believe that further analysis by these factors will help to elucidate the mechanism of OVF and GC. Taken together, our findings need to be validated in large-scale prospective studies. Furthermore, evaluation in different racial groups is also needed in the future.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that preoperative OVF was significantly associated with worse DFS and OS rates in patients who underwent gastrectomy for GC. In addition, we showed that the combination of osteopenia and OVF could be a stronger prognostic indicator than osteopenia and OVF alone.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

Authors' contributions

NF, KF, TI, FY and KE conceptualized the study. NF, KF and FY analysed the data. NF wrote the original draft, and FY, KE and TI revised and edited the draft. TM and KF performed statistical analyses. KaT, KeT, MY and MT collected the data and analyzed the results. NF and KaT confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fuji City General Hospital (297). The requirement for acquisition of informed consent from patients was waived because of the retrospective design of this study and the use of anonymized data.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References 1

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

Laversanne

Soerjomataram

Jemal

Bray

Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

CA Cancer J Clin712092492021

10.3322/caac.21660

33538338

Kawamura

Makuuchi

Tokunaga

Tanizawa

Bando

Yasui

Aoyama

Inano

Terashima

Long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients with preoperative sarcopenia

Ann Surg Oncol25162516322018

10.1245/s10434-018-6452-3

29633095

Wang

Ren

Qiu

Luo

Wang

Zhang

Wang

Comparison of the prognostic value of various preoperative inflammation-based factors in patients with stage III gastric cancer

Tumor Biol337497562012

10.1007/s13277-011-0285-z

Huang

Xue

Comparison of prognostic factors in different age groups and prognostic significance of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in patients with gastric cancer

World J Gastrointest Oncol12114611662020

10.4251/wjgo.v12.i10.1146

33133383

Fukushima

Tsuboi

Nyumura

Hoshino

Masuda

Suzuki

Kajimoto

Yano

Eto

Prognostic significance of preoperative osteopenia on outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Ann Gastroenterol Surg102552642022

36998304

Watanabe

Saitsu

Miki

Kotani

Sata

Prognostic value of preoperative low bone mineral density in patients with digestive cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Arch Osteoporos17332022

10.1007/s11657-022-01060-6

35149903

McCarthy

Davis

Diagnosis and management of vertebral compression fractures

Am Fam Physician9444502016

27386723

Furukawa

Haruki

Taniai

Yanagaki

Tsunematsu

Tanji

Ishizaki

Shirai

Onda

Ikegami

Occult vertebral fracture (OVF) in patients who underwent hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: Strong association with oncological outcomes

Cancers (Basel)1555132023

10.3390/cancers15235513

38067217

Ishizaki

Furukawa

Haruki

Tsunematsu

Shirai

Matsumoto

Okui

Onda

Taniai

Ikegami

Prognostic significance of occult vertebral fracture in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatology242492542024

10.1016/j.pan.2024.01.003

38218681

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma

3rd English edition

Gastric Cancer141011122011

10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5

21573743

Ochiai

The 15th Edition of Japanese Classification of Gastric carcinoma

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association

Volume 89

Tokyo, Japan

2017(In Japanese)

Dindo

Demartines

Clavien

Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey

Ann Surg2402052132004

10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

15273542

Masuda

Shirabe

Ikegami

Harimoto

Yoshizumi

Soejima

Uchiyama

Ikeda

Baba

Maehara

Sarcopenia is a prognostic factor in living donor liver transplantation

Liver Transpl204014072014

10.1002/lt.23811

24357065

Toshima

Yoshizumi

Ikegami

Harada

Itoh

Mano

Motomura

Soejima

Maehara

Impact of osteopenia in liver cirrhosis: Special reference to standard bone mineral density with age

Anticancer Res38646564712018

10.21873/anticanres.13009

30396973

Orimo

Hayashi

Fukunaga

Sone

Fujiwara

Shiraki

Kushida

Miyamoto

Soen

Nishimura

Diagnostic criteria for primary osteoporosis: Year 1996 revision

J Bone Miner Metab142192331997

Forrest

McMillan

McArdle

Angerson

Dunlop

Evaluation of cumulative prognostic scores based on the systemic inflammatory response in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer

Br J Cancer89102810302003

10.1038/sj.bjc.6601242

12966420

Onodera

Goseki

Kosaki

Prognostic nutritional index in gastrointestinal surgery of malnourished cancer patients

Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi85100110051984(In Japanese)

6438478

Yan

Cai

Wang

Zhuang

The prevalence and under-diagnosis of vertebral fractures on chest radiograph

BMC Musculoskelet Disord192352018

10.1186/s12891-018-2171-y

30021567

Grigoryan

Guermazi

Roemer

Delmas

Genant

Recognizing and reporting osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Eur Spine J12S104S1122003

10.1007/s00586-003-0613-0

13680316

Bazzocchi

Guglielmi

Vertebral fracture identification

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol203173292016

10.1055/s-0036-1592435

27842425

Watts

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Neurosurg Focus10E122001

10.3171/foc.2001.10.4.13

16732628

Jones

Nakashima

Sanchez

Kozieradzki

Komarova

Sarosi

Morony

Rubin

Sarao

Hojilla

Regulation of cancer cell migration and bone metastasis by RANKL

Nature4406926262006

10.1038/nature04524

16572175

Rokavec

Öner

Jackstadt

Jiang

Lodygin

Kaller

Horst

Ziegler

Schwitalla

IL-6R/STAT3/miR-34a feedback loop promotes EMT-mediated colorectal cancer invasion and metastasis

J Clin Invest124185318672016

10.1172/JCI73531

24642471

Yang

Zhao

Dong

Pathogenic roles of alterations in vitamin D and vitamin D receptor in gastric tumorigenesis

Oncotarget829474294862017

10.18632/oncotarget.15298

28206978

Shah

Iqbal

Alharbi

Kalra

Suri

Soni

Okpaleke

Yadav

Hamid

Vitamin D and gastric cancer: A ray of sunshine?

Cureus13e182752021

34722053

Yan

Tian

Huang

Prognostic value of estrogen receptor alpha and estrogen receptor beta in gastric cancer based on a meta-analysis and the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) datasets

Int J Surg5324312018

10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.03.027

29555527

Yoo

Lee

Kang

Kim

Sunwoo

Kim

Yook

Risk of osteoporosis after gastrectomy in long-term gastric cancer survivors

Gastric Cancer217207272018

10.1007/s10120-017-0777-7

29164360

Muszyński

Polak

Frątczak

Miziołek

Bergler-Czop

Szczepanik

Vitamin D-the nutritional status of post-gastrectomy gastric cancer patients-systematic review

Nutrients1427122022

10.3390/nu14132712

35807892

Watts

Focus on primary care postmenopausal osteoporosis: An update

Obstet Gynecol Surv55S49S552000

10.1097/00006254-200012001-00001

11128912

Figure 1.

Bone mineral density was measured in the trabecular bone by calculating the average pixel density within a circle in the midvertebral core at the bottom of 11th thoracic vertebra on preoperative computed tomography. (A) Osteopenia and (B) non-osteopenia. We measured the A, C and P heights of vertebrae from the 11th thoracic vertebra to the 5th lumber vertebra. The criteria for OVF were C/A <0.8 or C/P <0.8 in the any of the vertebrae. (C) OVF and (D) non-OVF. A, anterior; C, central; OVF, occult vertebral fracture; P, posterior.

Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier curve for (A) disease free survival and (B) overall survival after gastrectomy in the patients with gastric cancer according to the status of OVF. OVF, occult vertebral fracture.

Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier curve for (A) disease free survival and (B) overall survival after gastrectomy in the patients with gastric cancer according to the bone status. OVF, occult vertebral fracture.

Figure 4.

The rate of 5-year mortality rate according to the bone status. OVF, occult vertebral fracture.

Table I.

Patients' characteristics.

		OVF

Variable	Total (n=222)	Yes (n=64)	No (n=158)	P-value
Age, years^b	74 (68–80)	77 (71–81)	73 (64–79)	<0.01^a
Sex, male^c	170 (77%)	50 (78%)	120 (76%)	0.86
Body mass index, kg/m^2b	21.7 (19.9–24.4)	21.7 (19.3–24.2)	21.7 (20.4–24.5)	0.57
Serum CEA, ng/ml^b	3.7 (2.5–5.8)	3.7 (2.8–5.9)	3.7 (2.5–5.6)	0.76
BMD, HU^b	142 (113–176)	120 (98–145)	154 (120–187)	<0.01^a
PMA, cm^2b	19.1 (13.6–24.6)	16.8 (12.1–22.9)	19.8 (14.3–25.1)	0.02^a
GPS, 1 or 2^c	64 (29%)	25 (39%)	39 (25%)	0.04^a
PNI^b	48 (42–52)	45 (39–51)	48 (43–52)	0.01^a
Osteopenia, yes^c	68 (31%)	31 (48%)	37 (23%)	<0.01^a
Sarcopenia, yes^c	110 (50%)	40 (63%)	70 (44%)	0.02^a
Histological type^c				0.12
tub1	75 (34%)	19 (30%)	56 (35%)
tub2	35 (16%)	10 (15%)	25 (16%)
por	84 (38%)	29 (45%)	55 (34%)
sig	19 (8%)	2 (3%)	17 (11%)
pap	5 (2%)	1 (2%)	4 (3%)
muc	4 (2%)	3 (5%)	1 (1%)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yes^c	4 (2%)	1 (2%)	3 (2%)	>0.99
Operative approach^c				0.01^a
Open	95 (43%)	36 (56%)	59 (37%)
Laparoscope	127 (57%)	28 (44%)	99 (63%)
Operative procedure^c				0.03^a
DG	139 (63%)	34 (53%)	105 (67%)
PG	6 (3%)	0 (0%)	6 (4%)
TG	77 (34%)	30 (47%)	47 (29%)
Lymph node dissection^c				0.16
D1	58 (26%)	18 (28%)	40 (25%)
D1+	87 (39%)	19 (30%)	68 (43%)
D2	77 (35%)	27 (42%)	50 (32%)
Operative time, min^b	270 (230–326)	271 (236–328)	265 (229–325)	0.69
Blood loss, ml^b	154 (50–415)	223 (100–453)	150 (20–400)	0.10
Postoperative hospital stay, days^b	12 (10–20)	14 (11–22)	12 (10–19)	0.06
Postoperative complication	25 (11%)	6 (9%)	19 (12%)	0.65
(Clavien-Dindo grade III–V) ^c
Reoperation^c	8 (3%)	2 (3%)	6 (4%)	>0.99
T factor^c				<0.01^a
1	84 (38%)	16 (25%)	68 (43%)
2	27 (12%)	6 (9%)	21 (13%)
3	58 (26%)	15 (24%)	43 (27%)
4	53 (24%)	27 (42%)	26 (17%)
Lymph node metastases, yes^c	99 (45%)	39 (61%)	60 (38%)	<0.01^a
Stage^c				<0.01^a
I	91 (41%)	17 (26%)	74 (47%)
II	55 (25%)	14 (22%)	41 (26%)
III	76 (34%)	33 (51%)	43 (27%)
Adjuvant chemotherapy, yes^c	52 (23%)	23 (36%)	29 (18%)	<0.01^a
Curability^c				>0.99
R0	209 (94%)	60 (94%)	149 (94%)
R1 or R2	13 (6%)	4 (6%)	9 (6%)

P<0.05. Data are presented as

median (interquartile range) or

number (%). BMD, bone mineral density; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; DG, distal gastrectomy; GPS, Glasgow prognostic score; muc, mucinous adenocarcinoma; OVF, occult vertebral fracture; pap, papillary adenocarcinoma; PG, proximal gastrectomy; PMA, psoas muscle mass area; PNI, prognostic nutrition index; por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig, signet ring cell adenocarcinoma; TG, total gastrectomy; tub1, well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; tub2, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma.

Table II.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinicopathological variables in relation to disease-free survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

		DFS univariate analysis		DFS multivariate analysis

Variable	n	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P-value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P-value
Age, years
≥72	123	1.04	0.88
<72	99	(0.61–1.79)
Sex
Male	170	0.57	0.14
Female	52	(0.27–1.20)
Serum CEA, ng/ml
≥5	72	1.43	0.21
<5	150	(0.82–2.51)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	4	0.84	1.22
No	218	(0.17–8.84)
Osteopenia
Yes	68	2.20	<0.01^a	1.65	0.10
No	154	(1.27–3.80)		(0.91–2.98)
Sarcopenia
Yes	110	2.37	<0.01^a	1.66	0.11
No	112	(1.34–4.18)		(0.89–3.06)
OVF
Yes	68	3.20	<0.01^a	2.35	<0.01^a
No	154	(1.87–5.50)		(1.30–4.27)
GPS
1 or 2	64	1.93	0.02^a	1.36	0.48
0	158	(1.10–3.38)		(0.60–2.92)
PNI
≥45	142	1.74	0.04^a	0.61	0.22
<45	80	(1.01–3.01)		(0.27–1.35)
Operative time, min
≥267	110	0.87	0.60
<267	112	(0.51–1.49)
Intraoperative blood loss, ml
≥227	100	2.06	0.01	1.56	0.14
<227	122	(1.19–3.56)		(0.86–2.81)
Postoperative complication
(Clavien-Dindo grade III–V)
Yes	25	1.47	0.38
No	197	(0.63–3.44)
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	52	1.69	0.07
No	170	(0.97–2.97)
Stage
I	91	9.29	<0.01^a	6.15	<0.01^a
II or III	131	(3.69–23.37)		(2.36–16.01)
Curability
R1 or 2	13	8.47	<0.01^a	2.35	<0.01^a
R0	209	(3.97–18.05)		(1.30–4.27)

P<0.05. CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CI, confidence interval; DFS, disease-free survival; GPS, Glasgow prognostic score; OVF, occult vertebral fracture; PNI, prognostic nutrition index.

Table III.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinicopathological variables in relation to overall survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

		OS univariate analysis		OS multivariate analysis

Variable	n	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P-value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P-value
Age, years
≥72	123	1.22	0.49
<72	99	(0.69–2.14)
Sex
Male	170	0.64	0.24
Female	52	(0.30–1.46)
Serum CEA, ng/ml
≥5	72	1.21	0.53
<5	150	(0.67–2.20)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	4	1.43	0.72
No	218	(0.20–10.44)
Osteopenia
Yes	68	2.04	0.01^a	1.68	0.10
No	154	(1.15–3.61)		(0.91–3.12)
Sarcopenia
Yes	110	2.98	<0.01^a	1.77	0.10
No	112	(1.60–5.55)		(0.90–3.46)
OVF
Yes	68	3.50	<0.01^a	2.16	0.02^a
No	154	(1.98–6.17)		(1.15–4.03)
GPS
1 or 2	64	2.56	<0.01^a	1.19	0.66
0	158	(1.45–4.51)		(0.54–2.61)
PNI
≥45	142	2.69	<0.01^a	0.98	0.97
<45	80	(1.53–4.72)		(0.45–2.16)
Operative time, min
≥267	110	0.75	0.32
<267	112	(0.43–1.32)
Intraoperative blood loss, ml
≥227	100	2.48	<0.01^a	1.84	0.06
<227	122	(1.38–4.46)		(0.97–3.47)
Postoperative complication
(Clavien-Dindo grade III–V)
Yes	25	2.05	0.08
No	197	(0.92–4.56)
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	52	1.19	0.58
No	170	(0.64–2.21)
Stage
I	91	8.89	<0.01^a	5.31	<0.01^a
II or III	131	(3.52–22.46)		(2.02–13.92)
Curability
R1 or 2	13	9.98	<0.01^a	5.95	<0.01^a
R0	209	(4.42–22.54)		(2.47–14.35)

P<0.05. CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CI, confidence interval; GPS, Glasgow prognostic score; OVF, occult vertebral fracture; OS, overall survival; PNI, prognostic nutrition index.