Evaluation of three lymph node staging systems for prognostic prediction in gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Demographic details of all identified studies

Ref.	Year	Patient (n)	Age (Year)	Country	Racial	NLN	MLN	Follow-up time	TNM edition
Villalabeitia Ateca et al[28]	2022	199	NA	Spain	White	NA	NA	2010-2014	7th
Gu et al[29]	2021	7620	58.3 ± 11.7	China	Yellow	23.2 ± 13.1	4.9 ± 7.5	2001-2011	8th
Cao et al[30]	2019	877	NA	China	Yellow	NA	NA	2010-2012	8th
Pan et al[31]	2019	1730	56.3 ± 14.3	China	Yellow	23.8 ± 14.3	3.3 ± 6.0	1987-2012	8th
Lee et al[32]	2016	3929	56.8 ± 18.3	Korea	Yellow	41.2 ± 16.5	3.22 ± 6.8	1990-2012	7th
Calero et al[33]	2015	326	66.8 ± 15.3	Spain	White	27.5 ± 17.0	14.8 ± 13.75	2004-2010	7th
Aurello et al[19]	2014	177	63.0 ± 14.0	Italy	White	26.4 ± 12.0	6.9 ± 10.6	1997-2012	7th
Liu et al[22]	2013	372	58.9 ± 11.9	China	Yellow	23.2 ± 8.3	5.0 ± 4.7	2001-2006	7th
Sun et al[34]	2010	2517	NA	China	Yellow	21.1 ± 12.8	4.13 ± 6.63	1980-2008	6th
Koh et al[35]	2017	1243	58.5 ± 16.5	Korea	Yellow	43.5 ± 20.7	4.00 ± 8.93	2003-2013	7th
Tóth et al[36]	2017	164	64.3 ± 13.8	Hungary	White	15.0 ± 9.3	7.4 ± 5.8	2005-2010	8th
Jian-Hui et al[14]	2015	935	56.5 ± 15.8	China	Yellow	47.5 ± 35.0	33.3 ± 31.0	1994-2008	7th

NLN: Number of lymph nodes; MLN: Metastatic lymph nodes; NA: Not available; TNM: Tumor node metastasis.

Table 2 Effect estimates and study characteristics of all identified studies

Study	pN HR (95%CI)	Cutoff value	LNR HR (95%CI)	Cutoff value	LODDS HR (95%CI)	Cutoff value	Statistical analysis	Study design	NAT	Surgery (D2 vs D1 and D2)
Villalabeitia Ateca et al[28]	1.86 (1.25-2.77)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	2.83 (1.01-7.93)	0/0.33/0.66	2.88 (1.5-5.21)	-1.5/-1/-0.5/0	MA	R	Y	D1 and D2
Gu et al[29]	1.216 (1.149-1.286)	8th (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b)	4.00 (2.15-7.44)	0/0.067/0.3/0.7	4.38 (2.30-8.33)	-1.5/-1/-0.5/0	UA	R	N	NA
Cao et al[30]	2.012 (1.113-2.868)	8th (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b)	1.77 (1.023-2.38)	0/0.28/1	1.875 (1.101-2.877)	-0.5/0/0.5	MA	R	N	D2
Pan et al[31]	4.64 (2.41-8.92)	8th (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b)	4.37 (1.99-9.61)	0/0.2/0.5	3.15 (1.64-6.03)	-1.5/-1/-0.5/0	UA	R	Y	D2
Lee et al[32]	2.4 (1.3-4.41)	8th (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b)	2.33 (1.30-4.19)	0/0.1/0.2/0.3	2.39 (1.24-4.59)	-4/-2.5/-2/-0.5	MA	R	Y	D1 and D2
Calero et al[33]	1.02 (0.99-1.04)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	0.99 (0.97-1.01)	0/0.25/0.75	1.61 (1.2-2.25)	-5/-3/-1/3	MA	R	N	D1 and D2
Aurello et al[19]	1.648 (1.224-2.219)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	1.774 (1.29-2.43)	0/0.1/0.25	3.666 (1.515-8.867)	-1/-0.5/0/0.5	MA	R	N	D1 and D2
Liu et al[22]	5.08 (2.72-9.48)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	5.21 (3.01-8.99)	0/0.1/0.4	3.69 (1.87-7.27)	-1.5/-1/-0.5	UA	R	N	D2
Sun et al[34]	1.578 (1.465-1.699)	6th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	1.481 (1.39-1.57)	0/0.2/0.5	1.445 (1.369-1.525)	-1.5/-1/-0.5/0	MA	R	Y	D2
Koh et al[35]	20.39 (7.56-55.03)	8th (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b)	19.55 (6.17-61.9)	0/0.2/0.5	18.65 (7.54-46.09)	-0.5/0/0.5	MA	R	N	D1 and D2
Tóth et al[36]	2.87 (1.77-4.66)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	2.56 (1.53-4.28)	0/0.2/0.5	4.32 (1.83-10.16)	-1.125/-0.25/0.75	MA	R	N	D1 and D2
Jian-Hui et al[14]	2.81 (1.53-5.15)	7th (N0, N1, N2, N3)	2.86 (1.38-5.91)	0/0.1/0.25	4.63 (1.79-11.96)	-1.5/-1/0	MA	R	N	D2

LNR: Lymph node ratio; LODDS: Log odds of positive lymph nodes; pN: Pathological lymph nodes; NAT: Neoadjuvant therapy; HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval; NA: Not available; Y: Yes; N: No; MA: Multivariate statistical analysis models; UA: Univariate statistical analysis models; R: Retrospective.