Search

Abstract Objective To evaluate the multiple factors influencing the survival of elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) and develop and validate the novel nomograms for predicting the survival. Methods The clinical features of patients treated between 2000 and 2018 were collected and collated from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and three medical centres in China, and the patients were randomly divided into a training cohort (3494), internal validation cohort (1497) and external validation cohort (841). Univariate and multivariate analyses of the prognostic values were performed to identify independent prognostic factors associated with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), and two nomogram models were developed. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves were employed to assess discrimination and calibration. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to investigate the clinical usefulness. Results In the SEER database, the 5-year OS of the patients was 31.08%, while the 5-year CSS of the patients was 44.09%. Furthermore, in the external validation set, the 5-year OS of the patients was 49.58%, and the 5-year CSS of these patients was 53.51%. After statistical analysis, nine independent prognostic factors of OS and CSS were identified, including age, race, tumour size, differentiation, TNM stage, gastrectomy type, lymph node metastasis (LNM), lymph node ratio (LNR) and chemotherapy. The C‐index (approximately 0.7) and calibration curve (close to the optimal calibration line) indicated satisfactory discrimination and calibration of the nomogram. DCA and ROC curves showed that the developed nomogram was superior to TNM stage. Conclusion The novel validated nomogram could accurately predict the prognosis of individual elderly patients with LAGC and guide the selection of clinical treatment measures.

Abstract Background Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. Methods Literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed. Results Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42–0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31–0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23–1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44–0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16–2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12–3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25–0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22–0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.04–2.09). Conclusions SUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.