Objective To construct a machine learning prediction model for postoperative liver injury in patients with non-liver surgery based on preoperative and intraoperative medication indicators.Methods A case-control study was conducted on 315 patients with liver injury after non-liver surgery selected from the databases developed by 3 large general hospitals from January 2014 to September 2022.With the positive/negative ratio of 1 ∶3,928 cases in corresponding period with non-liver surgery and without liver injury were randomly matched as negative control cases.These 1243 patients were randomly divided into the modeling group(n=869)and the validation group(n=374)in a ratio of 7∶3 using the R language setting code.Preoperative clinical indicators(basic information,medical history,relevant scale score,surgical information and results of laboratory tests)and intraoperative medication were used to construct the prediction model for liver injury after non-liver surgery based on 4 machine learning algorithms,k-nearest neighbor(KNN),support vector machine linear(SVM),logic regression(LR)and extreme gradient boosting(XGBoost).In the validation group,receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve,precision-recall curve(P-R),decision curve analysis(DCA)curve,Kappa value,sensitivity,specificity,Brier score,and F1 score were applied to evaluate the efficacy of model.Results The model established by 4 machine learning algorithms to predict postoperative liver injury after non-liver surgery was optimal using the XGBoost algorithm.The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve(AUROC)was 0.916(95%CI:0.883～0.949),area under the precision-recall curve(AUPRC)was 0.841,Brier score was 0.097,and sensitivity and specificity was 78.95%and 87.10%,respectively.Conclusion The postoperative liver injury prediction model for non-liver surgery based on the XGBoost algorithm has effective prediction for the occurrence of postoperative liver injury.

Based on the literature study,the thoughts and possible therapeutic mechanism in treating male infertility from the perspective of spleen and kidney by regulating intestinal flora were explored.Disturbance of intestinal flora is one of the important factors leading to the development of male infertility,and the spleen and kidney have certain similarities to intestinal flora in the physiological function and pathological changes.Moreover,tonifying the kidney and strengthening the spleen can regulate the intestinal flora by fostering the growth of beneficial bacteria,inhibiting the reproduction of pathogenic bacteria,and protecting the barrier of the intestinal mucosa.Therefore,the possible therapeutic mechanisms in treating male infertility with the prescriptions for tonifying the kidney and strengthening the spleen to regulate intestinal flora are as follows:inhibiting the expression of inflammatory factors to reduce the inflammatory reaction of testicular tissues;improving the antioxidant capacity to alleviate the damage of spermatozoa caused by oxidative stress,and improving the bad mood to alleviate the impact of psychological stress on the reproductive system.The exploration of the thoughts for treating male infertility from the perspective of spleen and kidney by regulating intestinal flora may provide a new entry point for modern Chinese medicine clinical treatment of male infertility.

Objective:To investigate the current status of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in China, and to provide supporting data and reference for the development of endoscopic treatment.Methods:In this study, initiated by the Liver Health Consortium in China (CHESS), a questionnaire was designed and distributed online to investigate the basic condition of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in 2022 in China. Questions included annual number and indication of endoscopic procedures, adherence to guideline for preventing esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB), management and timing of emergent EGVB, management of gastric and isolated varices, and improvement of endoscopic treatment. Proportions of hospitals concerning therapeutic choices to all participant hospitals were calculated. Guideline adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals were compared by using Chi-square test.Results:A total of 836 hospitals from 31 provinces (anotomous regions and municipalities) participated in the survey. According to the survey, the control of acute EGVB (49.3%, 412/836) and the prevention of recurrent bleeding (38.3%, 320/836) were major indications of endoscopic treatment. For primary [non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) or endoscopic therapies] and secondary prophylaxis (NSBB and endoscopic therapies) of EGVB, adherence to domestic guideline was 72.5% (606/836) and 39.2% (328/836), respectively. There were significant differences in the adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals in primary prophylaxis of EGVB [71.0% (495/697) VS 79.9% (111/139), χ2=4.11, P=0.033] and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB [41.6% (290/697) VS 27.3% (38/139), χ2=9.31, P=0.002]. A total of 78.2% (654/836) hospitals preferred endoscopic therapies treating acute EGVB, and endoscopic therapy was more likely to be the first choice for treating acute EGVB in tertiary hospitals (82.6%, 576/697) than secondary hospitals [56.1% (78/139), χ2=46.33, P<0.001]. The optimal timing was usually within 12 hours (48.5%, 317/654) and 12-24 hours (36.9%, 241/654) after the bleeding. Regarding the management of gastroesophageal varices type 2 and isolated gastric varices type 1, most hospitals used cyanoacrylate injection in combination with sclerotherapy [48.2% (403/836) and 29.9% (250/836), respectively], but substantial proportions of hospitals preferred clip-assisted therapies [12.4% (104/836) and 26.4% (221/836), respectively]. Improving the skills of endoscopic doctors (84.2%, 704/836), and enhancing the precision of pre-procedure evaluation and quality of multidisciplinary team (78.9%, 660/836) were considered urgent needs in the development of endoscopic treatment. Conclusion:A variety of endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension are implemented nationwide. Participant hospitals are active to perform emergent endoscopy for acute EGVB, but are inadequate in following recommendations regarding primary and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB. Moreover, the selection of endoscopic procedures for gastric varices differs greatly among hospitals.

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 explore the effect and mechanism of hydroxysafflor yellow A(HSYA)on autophagy in bEnd.3 cells after oxygen-glucose deprivation(OGD).Methods The bEnd.3 cells were divided into normal group(conventional culture),model group(OGD model),HSYA group(OGD model+75 μmol·L-1 HSYA),3-methyladenine(3MA)group(5 mmol·L-1 3MA+OGD model)and 3 MA+HSYA group(5 mmol·L-1 3 MA+OGD model+75 μmol·L-1 HSYA).The level of apoptosis was determined by TUNEL fluorescence staining;Western blot was used to detect the expression of autophagy,blood brain barrier(BBB)related proteins;real time fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction method for determining the expression of sirtuin-1(SIRT1)and forkhead box protein O3a(FOXO3A)mRNA.Results In the normal group,model group,HSYA group,3MA group and 3MA+HSYA group,the positive cells selected for TUNEL staining were 5.00±1.00,28.00±2.00,21.00±3.00,35.33±2.51 and 29.67±2.52;the expression levels of microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3-Ⅱ/-Ⅰ(LC3-Ⅱ/-Ⅰ)were 0.90±0.20,1.34±0.10,1.95±0.14,0.76±0.15 and 1.14±0.09;sequestosome 1(P62)were 0.99±0.02,0.60±0.02,0.38±0.01,0.67±0.04 and 0.54±0.01;occludin were 1.39±0.17,0.62±0.15,1.00±0.09,0.40±0.13 and 0.80±0.15;zonula occludens-1(ZO-1)were 1.63±0.20,0.64±0.06,0.98±0.14,0.37±0.14 and 0.87±0.04;SIRT1 mRNA were 1.00±0.00,0.75±0.07,1.69±0.09,0.31±0.02 and 0.56±0.01;FOXO3A mRNA were 1.00±0.00,0.80±0.05,1.47±0.09,0.40±0.01 and 0.62±0.09,respectively.Significant differences were found between model group and normal group,HSYA group and model group,3MA+HSYA group and 3MA group(P＜0.05,P＜0.01,P＜0.001).Conclusion HSYA may enhance autophagy levels in bEnd.3 cells after OGD through the SIRT1/FOXO3A pathway,inhibit cell apoptosis and alleviate BBB damage.

As the backbone force of China's social and economic construction, the health status of workers is closely related to the nation's productivity and social development. Currently, cancers have become one of the major diseases threatening the health of workers. However, there are still many shortcomings in the cancer screening services for the workers. To standardize cancer screening services for workers, ensure the quality of screening services, and improve the overall screening effectiveness, 19 institutions, including Peking Union Medical College Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, have jointly formulated the Group Standard "Specification for service of cancer screening for workers (T/CHAA 023-2023)". This standard follows the principles of "legality, scientific rigor, advancement, and feasibility" and combines the frontier scientific advances in cancer screening. It clarifies the relevant requirements for service principles, service design, service delivery, service management, service evaluation, and improving worker cancer screening. Implementing this group standard will help connect the common screening needs of workers, employers, and cancer screening service providers, standardize the screening process, improve screening quality, and ultimately increase the early diagnosis rate and survival rate of cancer patients. Consequently, this group standard will help safeguard workers' health rights and interests, ensure the labor force resources, promote the comprehensive coordinated and sustainable development of society, and contribute to realizing the "Healthy China 2030" strategic policy.

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 explore the influential factors and predictive value of early femoral head collapse progression following allogeneic fibula grafting(AFG)surgery.Methods Clinical and radiological data of 68 patients(75 hips)with osteonecrosis of the femoral head(ONFH)who underwent AFG between January 2008 and December 2022 at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Department,Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine were retrospectively analyzed.Seventy-five hips were divided into stable(n=40)and progressive(n=35)groups based on the presence or absence of postoperative collapse progression.Age,gender,etiology,location of the lesion,Association Research Circulation Osseous(ARCO)stage,Japanese Committee of Osteonecrosis Investigation(JIC)classification,China-Japan Friendship Hospital(CJFH)classification,and Hounsfield units(HU)value of anterolateral sclerosis rim(ⅠSHU)were collected.Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors influencing early collapse progression after AFG.Receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve was used to analyze the predictive value of the identified factors influencing postoperative early collapse progression.Results Of the 75 hips,35(46.7%)had postoperative collapse progression.Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that age,ARCO stage,JIC classification,and ⅠSHU were in fluencing factors for early femoral head collapse progression after AFG(P<0.05).Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that ARCO stage ⅢA and JIC classification C2 were independent risk factors for early femoral head collapse progression after AFG,while ⅠSHU was identified as an independent protective factor(P<0.05).The ROC curve analysis showed that the sensitivities of ARCO stage,JIC classification,ⅠSHU,and the combined predictive model were 0.850,0.725,0.800,and 0.775,the specificities were 0.486,0.657,0.743,and 0.914,and the area under the ROC curve(AUC)were 0.668,0.725,0.811,and 0.896,respectively.Conclusions ⅠSHU is associated with early collapse progression after AFG in patients with ONFH.ARCO stage ⅢA,JIC classification C2,and ⅠSHU are independent factors influencing postoperative early collapse progression and have a certain predictive value.

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.