| Literature DB >> 22206626 |
Hiroaki Ito1, Haruhiro Inoue, Haruo Ikeda, Manabu Onimaru, Akira Yoshida, Toshihisa Hosoya, Kosuke Sudo, Nikolas Eleftheriadis, Roberta Maselli, Chiyo Maeda, Yoko Wada, Norimasa Sando, Shigeharu Hamatani, Shin-ei Kudo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both endoscopic and surgical approaches are employed in the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC). The aim of this study was to establish appropriate treatment strategies for early gastric cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22206626 PMCID: PMC3339341 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-30-117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Clinicopathological findings of patients with early gastric cancer (n = 327)
| Variables | Number of subjects (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 204 (62.4) |
| Female | 123 (37.6) |
| Gastrectomy | |
| Distal | 211 (64.5) |
| Proximal | 34 (10.4) |
| Total | 81 (24.8) |
| Partial | 1 (0.3) |
| Surgical approarch | |
| Laparoscopy | 236 (72.2) |
| Hand-assist | 27 (8.3) |
| Open laparotomy | 64 (19.6) |
| Tumor depth * | |
| pT1a (m) | 161 (49.2) |
| pT1b1 (sm1) | 43 (13.1) |
| pT1b2 (sm2) | 123 (37.6) |
| Lymph node metastasis † | |
| pN0 | 282 (86.2) |
| pN1 | 34 (10.4) |
| pN2 | 6 (1.8) |
| pN3 | 5 (1.5) |
| Distant metastasis † | |
| M0 | 327 (100.0) |
| M1 | 0 (0) |
| Main histologic type | |
| Differentiated | 169 (51.7) |
| Undifferentiated | 158 (48.3) |
| Lymphatic invasion † | |
| L0 | 246 (75.2) |
| L1-2 | 81 (24.8) |
| Venous invasion † | |
| V0 | 279 (85.3) |
| V1-3 | 48 (14.7) |
| Stage † | |
| IA | 282 (86.2) |
| IB | 34 (10.4) |
| II | 6 (1.8) |
| IIIA | 5 (1.5) |
* According to the third English edition of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [4].
† According to the seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer TNM guidelines [3].
Results of univariate analyses showing relationships between clinicopathological characteristics and lymph node metastases
| Variables | pT1a tumor | pT1b1 tumor | pT1b2 tumor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pN(+) | p-value | pN(+) | p-value | pN(+) | p-value | |
| Sex | 0.6269 | 0.2802 | 0.8309 | |||
| Male | 3/88 (3.4%) | 4/28 (14.3%) | 26/88 (29.6%) | |||
| Female | 1/73 (1.4%) | 0/15 | 11/35 (31.4%) | |||
| Age | 0.6332 | 0.3449 | 0.8432 | |||
| < 65 | 3/91 (3.3%) | 3/21 (14.3%) | 16/51 (31.4%) | |||
| 65 ≤ | 1/70 (1.4%) | 1/22 (4.6%) | 21/72 (29.2%) | |||
| Main tumor site | 0.1903 | 0.2707 | 0.1129 | |||
| Upper | 0/19 | 0/3 | 3/21 (14.3%) | |||
| Middle | 4/89 (4.5%) | 4/27 (14.8%) | 17/59 (28.8%) | |||
| Lower | 0/53 | 0/13 | 17/43 (39.5%) | |||
| Clinical macro type | 0.5655 | 0.5579 | 0.4764 | |||
| Depressed or excavated | 3/131 (2.3%) | 4/33 (12.1%) | 27/96 (28.1%) | |||
| Flat or elevated | 1/30 (3.3%) | 0/10 | 10/27 (37.0%) | |||
| Pathological macro type | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.4764 | |||
| Depressed | 4/139 (2.9%) | 4/37 (10.8%) | 27/96 (28.1%) | |||
| Flat or elevated | 0/22 | 0/6 | 10/27 (37.0%) | |||
| Ulceration | 0.1287 | 0.3235 | 0.4200 | |||
| No | 0/72 | 1/23 (4.4%) | 21/77 (27.3%) | |||
| Yes | 4/89 (4.5%) | 3/20 (15.0%) | 16/46 (34.8%) | |||
| Main histologic type | 0.1252 | 0.4672 | 0.8441 | |||
| Differentiated | 0/74 | 2/29 (6.9%) | 19/66 (28.8%) | |||
| Undifferentiated | 4/87 (4.6%) | 2/14 (14.3%) | 18/57 (31.6%) | |||
| Pathological tumor size | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0589 | |||
| ≤20 mm | 1/60 (1.7%) | 0/7 | 4/28 (14.3%) | |||
| 20 mm< | 3/101 (2.5%) | 4/36 (11.1%) | 33/95 (34.7%) | |||
| Pathological tumor size | 0.3083 | 1.0000 | 0.1730 | |||
| ≤30 mm | 1/96 (1.0%) | 2/21 (9.5%) | 13/55 (23.6%) | |||
| 30 mm< | 3/65 (4.6%) | 2/22 (9.1%) | 24/68 (35.3%) | |||
| Lymphatic invasion † | 0.0731 | 0.5227 | < 0.0001** | |||
| L0 | 3/158 (1.9%) | 3/36 (8.3%) | 4/52 (7.7%) | |||
| L1-2 | 1/3 (33.3%) | 1/7 (14.3%) | 33/71 (46.5%) | |||
| Venous invasion † | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.4200 | |||
| V0 | 4/160 (2.5%) | 4/42 (9.5%) | 21/77 (27.3%) | |||
| V1-3 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 16/46 (34.8%) | |||
** p < 0.01.
† According to the seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer TNM guidelines [3].
Relationships among tumor depth, histological type, and lymph node metastases
| Tumor depth | Histologic type | pN(+) | Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| m-sm1 (n = 204) | Differentiated | 1/72 (1.4%) | 1.000 | ||
| Mixed differentiated | 1/31 (3.2%) | 2.367 | 0.092-61.123 | 0.5527 | |
| Mixed undifferentiated | 3/22 (13.6%) | 11.211 | 1.351-233.786 | 0.0251* | |
| Undifferentiated | 3/79 (3.8%) | 2.803 | 0.350-57.357 | 0.3449 | |
| sm2 (n = 123) | Differentiated | 11/41 (26.8%) | 1.000 | ||
| Mixed differentiated | 8/25 (32.0%) | 1.283 | 0.423-3.808 | 0.6539 | |
| Mixed undifferentiated | 8/14 (57.1%) | 3.636 | 1.042-13.478 | 0.0430* | |
| Undifferentiated | 10/43 (23.3%) | 0.826 | 0.303-2.230 | 0.7054 | |
* p < 0.05
Pathological characteristics of pT1a and pT1b1 tumors with lymph node metastases
| Case | Tumor depth * | Macro type | Ulceration | Tumor size, mm | Histologic type | L† | V† | Number of positive node | Follow-up time, months | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | m | 0-IIc | Yes | 10 | sig, tub2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 97 | Alive |
| 2 | m | 0-IIc | Yes | 42 | sig, tub2, muc | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | Alive |
| 3 | m | 0-IIc | Yes | 60 | sig | 0 | 0 | 1 | 82 | Alive |
| 4 | m | 0-IIc | Yes | 100 | sig, por, tub1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 25 | Alive |
| 5 | sm1 | 0-IIc | No | 25 | tub1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 76 | Alive |
| 6 | sm1 | 0-IIc | Yes | 25 | tub2, por | 2 | 0 | 4 | 37 | Alive |
| 7 | sm1 | 0-IIc | Yes | 31 | sig | 1 | 1 | 11 | 58 | Deceased (bone metastasis) |
| 8 | sm1 | 0-IIc | Yes | 32 | por, sig | 1 | 0 | 1 | 20 | Alive |
* According to the third English edition of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [4].
† According to the seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer TNM guidelines [3].
muc = mucinous adenocarcinoma; por = poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig = signet-ring cell carcinoma; tub1 = well differentiated adenocarcinoma; tub2 = moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma.
Figure 1Endoscopic, macroscopic and pathological images of mucosal tumors with lymph node metastases. Four of 161 patients with mucosal tumors had nodal metastases. All of these patients had signet-ring cell carcinomas with ulceration. The smallest tumor was 10 mm in diameter (Case 1). One patient had non-perigastric nodal metastases along the common hepatic artery (Case 2).
Characteristics of cases with tumor recurrence (n = 9/327)
| Case | Extent of gastrectomy | Tumor depth * | Ulceration | Main histologic type | L † | V † | pN † | Initial recurrence site | DFS, months | OS, months | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Distal | sm1 | Yes | sig | 1 | 0 | 3 | Bone | 53 | 58 | Deceased |
| 2 | Distal | sm2 | Yes | por | 1 | 1 | 1 | Liver | 2 | 3 | Deceased |
| 3 | Total | sm2 | Yes | por | 1 | 0 | 0 | Peritoneum | 7 | 8 | Deceased |
| 4 | Total | sm2 | Yes | por | 1 | 1 | 1 | Liver | 12 | 20 | Deceased |
| 5 | Distal | sm2 | Yes | tub2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Lymph node | 12 | 44 | Deceased |
| 6 | Distal | sm2 | Yes | por | 1 | 0 | 1 | Liver | 14 | 29 | Deceased |
| 7 | Distal | sm2 | No | por | 1 | 0 | 3 | Bone | 19 | 21 | Deceased |
| 8 | Distal | sm2 | No | por | 1 | 1 | 0 | Anastomosis | 23 | 65 | Deceased |
| 9 | Total | sm2 | No | tub2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Peritoneum | 41 | 44 | Deceased |
* According to the third English edition of Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [4].
† According to the seventh edition of TNM classification of the International Union Against Cancer [3].
por = poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig = signet-ring cell carcinoma; tub2 = moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; DFS = disease-free survival; OS = overall survival.