ObjectivePrimary liver cancer, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is a significant global health issue, ranking as the sixth most diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Accurate and early diagnosis of HCC is crucial for effective treatment, as HCC and non-HCC malignancies like intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) exhibit different prognoses and treatment responses. Traditional diagnostic methods, including liver biopsy and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), face limitations in applicability and objectivity. The primary objective of this study was to develop an advanced, light-weighted classification network capable of distinguishing HCC from other non-HCC malignancies by leveraging the automatic analysis of brightness changes in CEUS images. The ultimate goal was to create a user-friendly and cost-efficient computer-aided diagnostic tool that could assist radiologists in making more accurate and efficient clinical decisions. MethodsThis retrospective study encompassed a total of 161 patients, comprising 131 diagnosed with HCC and 30 with non-HCC malignancies. To achieve accurate tumor detection, the YOLOX network was employed to identify the region of interest (ROI) on both B-mode ultrasound and CEUS images. A custom-developed algorithm was then utilized to extract brightness change curves from the tumor and adjacent liver parenchyma regions within the CEUS images. These curves provided critical data for the subsequent analysis and classification process. To analyze the extracted brightness change curves and classify the malignancies, we developed and compared several models. These included one-dimensional convolutional neural networks (1D-ResNet, 1D-ConvNeXt, and 1D-CNN), as well as traditional machine-learning methods such as support vector machine (SVM), ensemble learning (EL), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), and decision tree (DT). The diagnostic performance of each method in distinguishing HCC from non-HCC malignancies was rigorously evaluated using four key metrics: area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC), accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SE), and specificity (SP). ResultsThe evaluation of the machine-learning methods revealed AUC values of 0.70 for SVM, 0.56 for ensemble learning, 0.63 for KNN, and 0.72 for the decision tree. These results indicated moderate to fair performance in classifying the malignancies based on the brightness change curves. In contrast, the deep learning models demonstrated significantly higher AUCs, with 1D-ResNet achieving an AUC of 0.72, 1D-ConvNeXt reaching 0.82, and 1D-CNN obtaining the highest AUC of 0.84. Moreover, under the five-fold cross-validation scheme, the 1D-CNN model outperformed other models in both accuracy and specificity. Specifically, it achieved accuracy improvements of 3.8% to 10.0% and specificity enhancements of 6.6% to 43.3% over competing approaches. The superior performance of the 1D-CNN model highlighted its potential as a powerful tool for accurate classification. ConclusionThe 1D-CNN model proved to be the most effective in differentiating HCC from non-HCC malignancies, surpassing both traditional machine-learning methods and other deep learning models. This study successfully developed a user-friendly and cost-efficient computer-aided diagnostic solution that would significantly enhances radiologists’ diagnostic capabilities. By improving the accuracy and efficiency of clinical decision-making, this tool has the potential to positively impact patient care and outcomes. Future work may focus on further refining the model and exploring its integration with multimodal ultrasound data to maximize its accuracy and applicability.

Objective:To investigate the prognosis of patients with initially resectable gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) who were treated by different modalities, and analyze the influencing factors for prognosis of patients.Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 327 patients with initially resectable GCLM who were included in the database of a nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study on GCLM based on real-world data from January 2010 to December 2019 were collected. There were 267 males and 60 females, aged 61(54,68)years. According to the specific situations of patients, treatment modalities included radical surgery combined with systemic treatment, palliative surgery combined with systemic treatment, and systemic treatment alone. Observation indicators: (1) clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities; (2) prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities; (3) analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM; (4) screening of potential beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the independent sample t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and comparison between groups was conducted using the rank sum test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi-square test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and draw survival curve, and Log-Rank test was used for survival analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using the COX proportional hazard regression model. The propensity score matching was employed by the 1:1 nearest neighbor matching method with a caliper value of 0.1. The forest plots were utilized to evaluate potential benefits of diverse surgical combined with systemic treatments within the population. Results:(1) Clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities. Of 327 patients, there were 118 cases undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, 164 cases undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment, and 45 cases undergoing systemic treatment alone. There were significant differences in smoking, drinking, site of primary gastric tumor, diameter of primary gastric tumor, site of liver metastasis, and metastatic interval among the three groups of patients ( P<0.05). (2) Prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities. The median overall survival time of the 327 pati-ents was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval as 14.9-24.9 months), with 1-, 3-year overall survival rate of 61.3%, 32.7%, respectively. The 1-year overall survival rates of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and systemic treatment alone were 68.3%, 63.1%, 30.6%, and the 3-year overall survival rates were 41.1%, 29.9%, 11.9%, showing a significant difference in overall survival rate among the three groups of patients ( χ2=19.46, P<0.05). Results of further analysis showed that there was a significant difference in overall survival rate between patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients undergoing systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.40, 95% confidence interval as 0.26-0.61, P<0.05), between patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and patients under-going systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.47, 95% confidence interval as 0.32-0.71, P<0.05). (3) Analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. Results of multivariate analysis showed that the larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differentiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases were independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=1.20, 1.70, 1.20, 2.06, 95% confidence interval as 1.14-1.27, 1.25-2.31, 1.04-1.42, 1.45-2.92, P<0.05) and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy were independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=0.60, 0.39, 0.46, 95% confidence interval as 0.42-0.87, 0.25-0.60, 0.30-0.70, P<0.05). (4) Screening of potentinal beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Results of forest plots analysis showed that for patients with high-moderate differentiated GCLM and patients with liver metastasis located in the left liver, the overall survival rate of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment was better than patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment ( hazard ratio=0.21, 0.42, 95% confidence interval as 0.09-0.48, 0.23-0.78, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared to systemic therapy alone, both radical and palliative surgery plus systemic therapy can improve the pro-gnosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. The larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differen-tiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases are independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initial resectable GCLM and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy are independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM.

Objective:To observe and evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in China, and to explore the prognosis-related molecules in pancreatic cancer based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor tissues.Methods:From December 2018 to December 2020, patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were recruited to accept albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment in the oncology departments of 24 hospitals in East China. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and treatment related adverse events, and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Adverse effects were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 (CTCAE 5.0). NGS sequencing on the primary or metastatic tissue samples of pancreatic cancer obtained through surgical resection or biopsy was performed.Results:This study recruited 229 patients, including 70 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and 159 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). The disease control rate was 79.9% and the objective response rate is 36.3%.The common adverse effects during treatment were anaemia (159 cases), leucopenia (170 cases), neutropenia (169 cases), increased aminotransferases (110 cases), and thrombocytopenia (95 cases), and the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia is 12.2% (28/229). The median follow-up time was 21.2 months (95% CI: 18.5-23.1 months). The median PFS (mPFS) was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.37-4.07 months) and the median OS (mOS) was 11.2 months (95% CI: 9.5-12.9 months). The mPFS of patients with LAPC was 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6-11.2 months), and their mOS was 15.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-NA months). The mPFS of patients with mPC was 3.9 months (95% CI: 3.4-5.1 months), and their mOS was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.8 months). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that clinical stage ( HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.06-2.04), primary tumor site ( HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.86), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score ( HR=2.66, 95% CI: 1.53-4.65), and whether to combine radiotherapy ( HR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.00) were independent influencing factors for the PFS of these patients. The primary tumor site ( HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95), ECOG score ( HR=5.82, 95% CI: 3.14-10.82), and whether to combine radiotherapy ( HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.96) were independent influencing factors of the OS of these patients. The most frequent gene mutations in these advanced stage pancreatic patients were KRAS (89.66%), TP53 (77.01%), CDKN2A (32.18%), and SMAD4 (21.84%) by NGS of tumor tissues from 87 pancreatic cancer patients with sufficient specimens. Further analysis revealed that mutations in CDKN2B, PTEN, FGF6, and RBBP8 genes were significantly associated with an increased risk of death ( P＜0.05). Conclusion:Albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment demonstrated feasible anti-tumor efficacy and manageable safety for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in China.

Objective:To observe and evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in China, and to explore the prognosis-related molecules in pancreatic cancer based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor tissues.Methods:From December 2018 to December 2020, patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were recruited to accept albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment in the oncology departments of 24 hospitals in East China. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and treatment related adverse events, and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Adverse effects were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 (CTCAE 5.0). NGS sequencing on the primary or metastatic tissue samples of pancreatic cancer obtained through surgical resection or biopsy was performed.Results:This study recruited 229 patients, including 70 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and 159 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). The disease control rate was 79.9% and the objective response rate is 36.3%.The common adverse effects during treatment were anaemia (159 cases), leucopenia (170 cases), neutropenia (169 cases), increased aminotransferases (110 cases), and thrombocytopenia (95 cases), and the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia is 12.2% (28/229). The median follow-up time was 21.2 months (95% CI: 18.5-23.1 months). The median PFS (mPFS) was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.37-4.07 months) and the median OS (mOS) was 11.2 months (95% CI: 9.5-12.9 months). The mPFS of patients with LAPC was 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6-11.2 months), and their mOS was 15.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-NA months). The mPFS of patients with mPC was 3.9 months (95% CI: 3.4-5.1 months), and their mOS was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.8 months). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that clinical stage ( HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.06-2.04), primary tumor site ( HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.86), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score ( HR=2.66, 95% CI: 1.53-4.65), and whether to combine radiotherapy ( HR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.00) were independent influencing factors for the PFS of these patients. The primary tumor site ( HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95), ECOG score ( HR=5.82, 95% CI: 3.14-10.82), and whether to combine radiotherapy ( HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.96) were independent influencing factors of the OS of these patients. The most frequent gene mutations in these advanced stage pancreatic patients were KRAS (89.66%), TP53 (77.01%), CDKN2A (32.18%), and SMAD4 (21.84%) by NGS of tumor tissues from 87 pancreatic cancer patients with sufficient specimens. Further analysis revealed that mutations in CDKN2B, PTEN, FGF6, and RBBP8 genes were significantly associated with an increased risk of death ( P＜0.05). Conclusion:Albumin-bound paclitaxel as first-line treatment demonstrated feasible anti-tumor efficacy and manageable safety for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in China.

To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic reports for pancreatic lesions.

Objective　To assess the diagnostic efficacy of the cell-free Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA testing (CF-TB) in tuberculous pleurisy. Methods　A total of 71 patients diagnosed with tuberculous pleurisy and 35 patients with non-tuberculous pleurisy were selected from the Fifth People's Hospital of Wuxi between January to December 2022. The standard pleural puncture was conducted to collect pleural effusion, which was then utilized for Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture, GeneXpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin resistance (GeneXpert MTB/RIF), CF-TB, and adenosine deaminase (ADA) testing. Blood samples were subjected to tuberculosis infection T-cell spotting test (T-SPOT.TB) assay. The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was applied to obtain the optimal cut-off value for pleural fluid CF-TB and to compare the diagnostic performance of CF-TB with other methods. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0 software, with statistical significance defined as P<0.05. Results　The ROC curve analysis determined that the optimal cycle threshold (Ct) value for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy using CF-TB in pleural fluid was 38.489, with a sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 97.1%. In comparison, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of T-SPOT.TB and pleural fluid ADA in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy were 86.0%, 71.4%, 86.0%, 71.4%, 81.1%, and 55.0%, 91.4%, 92.9%, 50.8%, 67.0%, respectively, all of which were lower than the diagnostic efficiency of CF-TB. Furthermore, the specificity of pleural fluid CF-TB in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy (97.1%) was not significantly different from GeneXpert MTB/RIF (100%) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture (100%), but its sensitivity (91.5%) was significantly higher than both GeneXpert MTB/RIF (19.7%) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture (28.2%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Conclusions　Compared to the conventional gold standard for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy, CF-TB exhibits a higher sensitivity and its specificity is superior to that of tuberculosis immunological test. Consequently, CF-TB can serve as a valuable complement to other traditional detection methods in aiding the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy.

Objective:To investigate the incidence of postoperative complications in Chinese patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, and to evaluate the risk factors for postoperative complications.Methods:This was a national, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, cohort study of data obtained from the database of the Prevalence of Abdominal Complications After Gastro- enterological Surgery (PACAGE) study sponsored by the China Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Union. The PACAGE database prospectively collected general demographic characteristics, protocols for perioperative treatment, and variables associated with postoperative complications in patients treated for gastric or colorectal cancer in 20 medical centers from December 2018 to December 2020. The patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were categorized and graded in accordance with the expert consensus on postoperative complications in gastrointestinal oncology surgery and Clavien-Dindo grading criteria. The incidence of postoperative complications of different grades are presented as bar charts. Independent risk factors for occurrence of postoperative complications were identified by multifactorial unconditional logistic regression.Results:The study cohort comprised 3926 patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, 657 (16.7%) of whom had a total of 876 postoperative complications. Serious complications (Grade III and above) occurred in 4.0% of patients (156/3926). The rate of Grade V complications was 0.2% (7/3926). The cohort included 2271 patients with gastric cancer with a postoperative complication rate of 18.1% (412/2271) and serious complication rate of 4.7% (106/2271); and 1655 with colorectal cancer, with a postoperative complication rate of 14.8% (245/1655) and serious complication rate of 3.0% (50/1655). The incidences of anastomotic leakage in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer were 3.3% (74/2271) and 3.4% (56/1655), respectively. Abdominal infection was the most frequently occurring complication, accounting for 28.7% (164/572) and 39.5% (120/304) of postoperative complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer, respectively. The most frequently occurring grade of postoperative complication was Grade II, accounting for 65.4% (374/572) and 56.6% (172/304) of complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancers, respectively. Multifactorial analysis identified (1) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the gastric cancer group: preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.54, 95%CI: 1.51-4.28, P<0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.42, 95%CI:1.06-1.89, P=0.020), high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (ASA score 2 points:OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.07, P<0.001, ASA score ≥3 points:OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.73, P=0.002), operative time >180 minutes (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.42-2.31, P<0.001), intraoperative bleeding >50 mL (OR=1.29,95%CI: 1.01-1.63, P=0.038), and distal gastrectomy compared with total gastrectomy (OR=0.65,95%CI: 0.51-0.83, P<0.001); and (2) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the colorectal cancer group: female (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.44-0.80, P<0.001), preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.73, 95%CI: 1.25-5.99, P=0.030), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.83, 95%CI:1.23-2.72, P=0.008), laparoscopic surgery (OR=0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.72, P=0.022), and abdominoperineal resection compared with low anterior resection (OR=2.74, 95%CI: 1.71-4.41, P<0.001). Conclusion:Postoperative complications associated with various types of infection were the most frequent complications in patients with gastric or colorectal cancer. Although the risk factors for postoperative complications differed between patients with gastric cancer and those with colorectal cancer, the presence of preoperative comorbidities, administration of neoadjuvant therapy, and extent of surgical resection, were the commonest factors associated with postoperative complications in patients of both categories.

Objective:To examine the impact of varied surgical treatment strategies on the prognosis of patients with initial resectable gastric cancer liver metastases (IR-GCLM).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study. Employing a retrospective cohort design, the study selected clinicopathological data from the national multi-center retrospective cohort study database, focusing on 282 patients with IR-GCLM who underwent surgical intervention between January 2010 and December 2019. There were 231 males and 51 males, aging ( M(IQR)) 61 (14) years (range: 27 to 80 years). These patients were stratified into radical and palliative treatment groups based on treatment decisions. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distinctions in survival rates were assessed using the Log-rank test. The Cox risk regression model evaluated HR for various factors, controlling for confounders through multivariate analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of surgery on the prognosis of IR-GCLM patients. A restricted cubic spline Cox proportional hazard model assessed and delineated intricate associations between measured variables and prognosis. At the same time, the X-tile served as an auxiliary tool to identify critical thresholds in the survival analysis for IR-GCLM patients. Subgroup analysis was then conducted to identify potential beneficiary populations in different surgical treatments. Results:(1) The radical group comprised 118 patients, all undergoing R0 resection or local physical therapy of primary and metastatic lesions. The palliative group comprised 164 patients, with 52 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors and liver metastases, 56 cases undergoing radical resections for gastric primary tumors only, 45 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors, and 11 cases receiving palliative treatments for liver metastases. A statistically significant distinction was observed between the groups regarding the site and the number of liver metastases (both P<0.05). (2) The median overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 22.7 months (95% CI: 17.8 to 27.6 months), with 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 65.4% and 35.6%, respectively. The 1-year OS rates for patients in the radical surgical group and palliative surgical group were 68.3% and 63.1%, while the corresponding 3-year OS rates were 42.2% and 29.9%, respectively. A comparison of OS between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference ( P=0.254). Further analysis indicated that patients undergoing palliative gastric cancer resection alone had a significantly worse prognosis compared to other surgical options ( HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.24, P=0.006). (3) The size of the primary gastric tumor significantly influenced the patients′ prognosis ( HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.79, P<0.01), with HR showing a progressively increasing trend as tumor size increased. (4) Subgroup analysis indicates that radical treatment may be more effective compared to palliative treatment in the following specific cases: well/moderately differentiated tumors ( HR=2.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.41, P=0.001), and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver ( HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.010). Conclusions:In patients with IR-GCLM, radical surgery did not produce a significant improvement in the overall prognosis compared to palliative surgery. However, within specific patient subgroups (well/moderately differentiated tumors, and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver), radical treatment can significantly improve prognosis compared to palliative approaches.

Objective:To investigate the incidence of postoperative complications in Chinese patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, and to evaluate the risk factors for postoperative complications.Methods:This was a national, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, cohort study of data obtained from the database of the Prevalence of Abdominal Complications After Gastro- enterological Surgery (PACAGE) study sponsored by the China Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Union. The PACAGE database prospectively collected general demographic characteristics, protocols for perioperative treatment, and variables associated with postoperative complications in patients treated for gastric or colorectal cancer in 20 medical centers from December 2018 to December 2020. The patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were categorized and graded in accordance with the expert consensus on postoperative complications in gastrointestinal oncology surgery and Clavien-Dindo grading criteria. The incidence of postoperative complications of different grades are presented as bar charts. Independent risk factors for occurrence of postoperative complications were identified by multifactorial unconditional logistic regression.Results:The study cohort comprised 3926 patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, 657 (16.7%) of whom had a total of 876 postoperative complications. Serious complications (Grade III and above) occurred in 4.0% of patients (156/3926). The rate of Grade V complications was 0.2% (7/3926). The cohort included 2271 patients with gastric cancer with a postoperative complication rate of 18.1% (412/2271) and serious complication rate of 4.7% (106/2271); and 1655 with colorectal cancer, with a postoperative complication rate of 14.8% (245/1655) and serious complication rate of 3.0% (50/1655). The incidences of anastomotic leakage in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer were 3.3% (74/2271) and 3.4% (56/1655), respectively. Abdominal infection was the most frequently occurring complication, accounting for 28.7% (164/572) and 39.5% (120/304) of postoperative complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer, respectively. The most frequently occurring grade of postoperative complication was Grade II, accounting for 65.4% (374/572) and 56.6% (172/304) of complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancers, respectively. Multifactorial analysis identified (1) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the gastric cancer group: preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.54, 95%CI: 1.51-4.28, P<0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.42, 95%CI:1.06-1.89, P=0.020), high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (ASA score 2 points:OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.07, P<0.001, ASA score ≥3 points:OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.73, P=0.002), operative time >180 minutes (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.42-2.31, P<0.001), intraoperative bleeding >50 mL (OR=1.29,95%CI: 1.01-1.63, P=0.038), and distal gastrectomy compared with total gastrectomy (OR=0.65,95%CI: 0.51-0.83, P<0.001); and (2) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the colorectal cancer group: female (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.44-0.80, P<0.001), preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.73, 95%CI: 1.25-5.99, P=0.030), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.83, 95%CI:1.23-2.72, P=0.008), laparoscopic surgery (OR=0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.72, P=0.022), and abdominoperineal resection compared with low anterior resection (OR=2.74, 95%CI: 1.71-4.41, P<0.001). Conclusion:Postoperative complications associated with various types of infection were the most frequent complications in patients with gastric or colorectal cancer. Although the risk factors for postoperative complications differed between patients with gastric cancer and those with colorectal cancer, the presence of preoperative comorbidities, administration of neoadjuvant therapy, and extent of surgical resection, were the commonest factors associated with postoperative complications in patients of both categories.

Objective:To examine the impact of varied surgical treatment strategies on the prognosis of patients with initial resectable gastric cancer liver metastases (IR-GCLM).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study. Employing a retrospective cohort design, the study selected clinicopathological data from the national multi-center retrospective cohort study database, focusing on 282 patients with IR-GCLM who underwent surgical intervention between January 2010 and December 2019. There were 231 males and 51 males, aging ( M(IQR)) 61 (14) years (range: 27 to 80 years). These patients were stratified into radical and palliative treatment groups based on treatment decisions. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distinctions in survival rates were assessed using the Log-rank test. The Cox risk regression model evaluated HR for various factors, controlling for confounders through multivariate analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of surgery on the prognosis of IR-GCLM patients. A restricted cubic spline Cox proportional hazard model assessed and delineated intricate associations between measured variables and prognosis. At the same time, the X-tile served as an auxiliary tool to identify critical thresholds in the survival analysis for IR-GCLM patients. Subgroup analysis was then conducted to identify potential beneficiary populations in different surgical treatments. Results:(1) The radical group comprised 118 patients, all undergoing R0 resection or local physical therapy of primary and metastatic lesions. The palliative group comprised 164 patients, with 52 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors and liver metastases, 56 cases undergoing radical resections for gastric primary tumors only, 45 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors, and 11 cases receiving palliative treatments for liver metastases. A statistically significant distinction was observed between the groups regarding the site and the number of liver metastases (both P<0.05). (2) The median overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 22.7 months (95% CI: 17.8 to 27.6 months), with 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 65.4% and 35.6%, respectively. The 1-year OS rates for patients in the radical surgical group and palliative surgical group were 68.3% and 63.1%, while the corresponding 3-year OS rates were 42.2% and 29.9%, respectively. A comparison of OS between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference ( P=0.254). Further analysis indicated that patients undergoing palliative gastric cancer resection alone had a significantly worse prognosis compared to other surgical options ( HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.24, P=0.006). (3) The size of the primary gastric tumor significantly influenced the patients′ prognosis ( HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.79, P<0.01), with HR showing a progressively increasing trend as tumor size increased. (4) Subgroup analysis indicates that radical treatment may be more effective compared to palliative treatment in the following specific cases: well/moderately differentiated tumors ( HR=2.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.41, P=0.001), and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver ( HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.010). Conclusions:In patients with IR-GCLM, radical surgery did not produce a significant improvement in the overall prognosis compared to palliative surgery. However, within specific patient subgroups (well/moderately differentiated tumors, and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver), radical treatment can significantly improve prognosis compared to palliative approaches.