Background:There is little evidence if chemotherapy (CT) offer survival benefit for elderly patients (EP) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective study. A total of 118 patients with AGC were hospitalized at our hospital from April 2012 to June 2016. Of them, EP older than 75 years with AGC were eligible for inclusion in the study. Basically, the treatment strategy, chemotherapy (CT) or best supportive care (BSC) were comprehensively decided according to their background. We evaluate the risk factors for survival using the Cox proportional hazard model and explored the optimal indication for CT for EP. Results: Of 118 patients with AGC, 47 patients were enrolled as EP [63% men; mean age, 81 years]. Of EP, 26 patients (55%) received CT and 21 patients received BSC. As first-line CT, 13 patients received S1 monotherapy, the others treated with combination agents. The median overall survival time (MST) was 138 days. There was no significant difference between CT and BSC group (172 vs. 118 days, p = 0. 1087). Univariate analysis revealed the following 5 factors for poor prognosis were significant (defined as p-value < 0.1): Performance status (PS) ³a 2 (HR3.7, 95% CI: 1.5-8.5), C-reactive protein levels ³a 1mg/dL (HR4.0, 95% CI: 1.8-9.4), albumin level < 3g/dL (HR2.1, 95% CI: 1.1-4.3), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ³a 4 (HR3.7, 95% CI: 1.7-8.5), and diffuse type (HR1.8, 95% CI: 0.9-3.8). As each poor risk factor of 5 and age factor ³a 80 years represents point 1, we calculated total points (0-6) for each patient. Median total points of CT and BSC were 2 and 4, respectively (p = 0.0196). Therefore, we set cut-off point of 3. Then, EP with a total point of 3 and more were classified as high risk group (HR: N = 25) and the others were as low risk group (LR: N = 22). There was significantly longer MST in LR than HR (all EP; 457 vs 105 days, HR: 0.23, p = 0.0002 and EP with CT; 232 vs 113 days, HR:0.26, p = 0.0085). Conclusions: Our findings using the scoring system including 6 factors suggest that EP with a total point 3 and more, were poor prognosis and may not receive benefit from CT for AGC. When judging indication for CT in EP with AGC, this scoring system may be useful, and in case of LR (total point 0-2) may be considered an indication for CT.