Literature DB >> 11013353

Pathology and prognosis of gastric carcinoma: well versus poorly differentiated type.

Y Adachi1, K Yasuda, M Inomata, K Sato, N Shiraishi, S Kitano.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The most important parameters predicting outcome of patients with gastric carcinoma are the depth of wall invasion and the status of lymph node metastasis, but the prognostic significance of histologic type is unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the prognostic value of two major histologic types of gastric carcinoma, that is well and poorly differentiated types.
METHODS: Histopathologic findings and outcomes of 504 patients with gastric carcinoma were evaluated by well and poorly differentiated types. Well differentiated gastric carcinoma (WGC) included papillary and tubular adenocarcinomas, poorly differentiated medullary carcinoma, and well differentiated mucinous carcinoma; whereas poorly differentiated gastric carcinoma (PGC) included poorly differentiated scirrhous carcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, and poorly differentiated mucinous carcinoma.
RESULTS: Patients with WGC were characterized by old age, male predominance, tumor location in the lower third of the stomach, small tumor size, and liver metastasis; whereas patients with PGC were distinguished by their tumor location in the middle third of the stomach, serosal invasion, lymph node metastasis, advanced stage, and peritoneal dissemination. The overall 5-year survival rate for patients with WGC was higher than that for patients with PGC (76% vs. 67%; P = 0.058), especially for patients with >/= 10 cm tumors (42% vs. 14%; P = 0.017). The 5-year survival rate for patients with serosa positive but node negative tumors was higher in WGC patients than in PGC patients (83% vs. 59%; P = 0.086); whereas the 5-year survival rate for patients with serosa negative but node positive tumors was lower in WGC patients than in PGC patients (63% vs. 88%; P = 0.008). Multivariate analysis indicated that among pathologic variables of the tumor, histologic type (WGC vs. PGC) was one of the independent prognostic factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Histologic type is important for estimating the tumor progression and outcomes of patients with gastric carcinoma. In addition to the depth of wall invasion and status of lymph node metastasis, histologic type, including well or poorly differentiated type, should be evaluated in the management of gastric cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11013353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  89 in total

1.  Is pretreatment endoscopic biopsy a good predictor of signet ring cell histology in gastric carcinoma?

Authors:  Guillaume Piessen; David Amielh; Mathieu Messager; Edouard Vinatier; Emmanuelle Leteurtre; Jean Pierre Triboulet; Christophe Mariette
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Decreased expression of Bauhinia purpurea lectin is a predictor of gastric cancer recurrence.

Authors:  Takuro Futsukaichi; Tsuyoshi Etoh; Kentaro Nakajima; Tsutomu Daa; Hidefumi Shiroshita; Norio Shiraishi; Seigo Kitano; Masafumi Inomata
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Long-term quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  K Yasuda; N Shiraishi; T Etoh; A Shiromizu; M Inomata; S Kitano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Claudin-1, but not claudin-4, exhibits differential expression patterns between well- to moderately-differentiated and poorly-differentiated gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Yasunori Tokuhara; Tatsuya Morinishi; Toru Matsunaga; Hiroyuki Ohsaki; Yoshio Kushida; Reiji Haba; Eiichiro Hirakawa
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  The correlation between gastric cancer screening method and the clinicopathologic features of gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Youn Han; Hyehyun Son; Won Chul Lee; Byung Gil Choi
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.064

6.  Discrepancies in the histologic type between biopsy and resected specimens: a cautionary note for mixed-type gastric carcinoma.

Authors:  Shuhei Komatsu; Daisuke Ichikawa; Mahito Miyamae; Toshiyuki Kosuga; Hirotaka Konishi; Atsushi Shiozaki; Hitoshi Fujiwara; Kazuma Okamoto; Mitsuo Kishimoto; Eigo Otsuji
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Vasculogenic mimicry: a new prognostic sign of gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Man Li; Yanjun Gu; Zhiguang Zhang; Shiwu Zhang; Danfang Zhang; Ali F Saleem; Xiulan Zhao; Baocun Sun
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  Characteristics of synchronous cancers in gastric cancer patients.

Authors:  Ja Seong Bae; Jun Ho Lee; Keun Won Ryu; Young Woo Kim; Jae Moon Bae
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 4.679

9.  Risk factors of survival and surgical treatment for advanced gastric cancer with large tumor size.

Authors:  Chen Li; Sung Jin Oh; Sungsoo Kim; Woo Jin Hyung; Min Yan; Zheng Gang Zhu; Sung Hoon Noh
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Prognostic factors and availability of D2 lymph node dissection for the patients with stage II gastric cancer: comparative analysis of subgroups in stage II.

Authors:  Joong-Min Park; Jong-Han Kim; Sung-Soo Park; Seung-Joo Kim; Young-Jae Mok; Chong-Suk Kim
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.