Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 22;13(12):e00519. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000519

Table 2.

Comparison of LNM prevalence in different subgroups of patients with EPAC, non-EPAC differentiated EGC, and poorly differentiated EGC

EPAC (N = 335) Non-EPAC differentiated EGC (N = 1,077) Poorly differentiated EGC (N = 1,101) P—univariate analysis
≤2.0 cm 23 (12.5%) 31 (4.3%) 117 (17.2%) <0.001
>2.0 cm, ≤3.0 cm 18 (20.5%) 22 (9.5%) 64 (24.8%) <0.001
>3.0 cm 21 (33.3%) 17 (13.4%) 51 (31.5%) 0.001
M 3 (3.1%) 8 (1.4%) 60 (12.4%) <0.001
SM1 11 (14.3%) 13 (5.8%) 47 (24.2%) <0.001
SM2 48 (29.6%) 49 (18.1%) 125 (29.6%) 0.002
No ulceration 51 (18.0%) 47 (5.4%) 162 (18.9%) <0.001
Ulceration 11 (21.2%) 23 (10.9%) 70 (28.5%) <0.001
Absolute indication 1 (2.0%) 3 (0.8%) 0.412
Expanded indication 9 (10.1%) 12 (3.2%) 28 (9.7%) 0.001
Relative indication 52 (26.7%) 55 (16.2%) 204 (25.1%) 0.002

EGC, early gastric carcinoma; EPAC, early gastric papillary adenocarcinoma; LNM, lymph node metastasis; M, confined to mucosa; SM1, <500 μm from the muscularis mucosae; SM2, confined to the submucosa and >500 μm from the muscularis mucosae.