Literature DB >> 24520426

Sixth and seventh tumor-node-metastasis staging system compared in gastric cancer patients.

Tommaso Zurleni1, Elson Gjoni1, Andrea Ballabio1, Roberto Casieri1, Paola Ceriani1, Luca Marzoli1, Francesco Zurleni1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the clinical relevance and prognosis regarding survival according to the changes of the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) in gastric cancer patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied 347 consecutive subjects who underwent surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma at the Division of General Surgery, Hospital of Busto Arsizio, Busto Arsizio, Italy between June 1998 and December 2009. Patients who underwent surgery without curative intent, patients with tumors of the gastric stump and patients with tumors involving the esophagus were excluded for survival analysis. Patients were staged according to the 6(th) and 7(th) edition TNM criteria; 5-year overall survival rates were investigated, and the event was defined as death from any cause.
RESULTS: After exclusion, our study population included 241 resected patients with curative intent for gastric adenocarcinoma. The 5-year overall survival (5-year OS) rate of all the patients was 52.8%. The diagnosed stage differed in 32% of 241 patients based on the TNM edition used for the diagnosis. The patients in stage II according to the 6(th) edition who were reclassified as stage III had significantly worse prognosis than patients classified as stage II (5-year OS, 39% vs 71%). According to the 6(th) edition, 135 patients were classifed as T2, and 75% of these patients migrated to T3 and exhibited a significantly worse prognosis than those who remained T2, regardless of lymph node involvement (37% vs 71%). The new N1 patients exhibited a better prognosis than the previous N1 patients (67% vs 43%).
CONCLUSION: 7(th) TNM allows new T2 and N1 patients to be selected with better prognosis, which leads to different staging. New stratification is important in multimodal therapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastric cancer; Lymphadenectomy; Prognostic factor; Survival analysis; Tumor-node-metastasis staging system

Year:  2013        PMID: 24520426      PMCID: PMC3920116          DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v5.i11.287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg


  20 in total

1.  The superiority of ratio-based lymph node staging in gastric carcinoma.

Authors:  Kentaro Inoue; Yasushi Nakane; Hitoshi Iiyama; Mutsuya Sato; Tatsuya Kanbara; Koji Nakai; Syunichiro Okumura; Keigo Yamamichi; Koshiro Hioki
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 7.370

3.  Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3).

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 7.370

4.  Validation of the new AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer in a large cohort of patients (n = 2,155): focus on the T category.

Authors:  A Marchet; S Mocellin; A Ambrosi; P Morgagni; G Vittimberga; F Roviello; D Marrelli; G de Manzoni; A Minicozzi; A Coniglio; G Tiberio; F Pacelli; F Rosa; D Nitti
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 4.424

5.  Comparison of a lymph node ratio-based staging system with the 7th AJCC system for gastric cancer: analysis of 18,043 patients from the SEER database.

Authors:  Jiping Wang; Ping Dang; Chandrajit P Raut; Prakash K Pandalai; Ugwuji N Maduekwe; David W Rattner; Gregory Y Lauwers; Sam S Yoon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Changing clinical and pathological features of gastric cancer over time.

Authors:  D Marrelli; C Pedrazzani; P Morgagni; G de Manzoni; F Pacelli; A Coniglio; A Marchet; L Saragoni; S Giacopuzzi; F Roviello
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Evaluation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Classification of gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with the sixth classification.

Authors:  Hye Seong Ahn; Hyuk-Joon Lee; Seokyung Hahn; Woo-Ho Kim; Kuhn Uk Lee; Takeshi Sano; Stephen B Edge; Han-Kwang Yang
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Prognostic significance of subclassification of pT2 gastric cancer: a retrospective study of 847 patients.

Authors:  Yang Lu; Caigang Liu; Ruishan Zhang; Hua Li; Ping Lu; Feng Jin; Huimian Xu; Shubao Wang; Junqing Chen
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 3.279

9.  The ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (N ratio) is an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer regardless of the type of lymphadenectomy: results from an Italian multicentric study in 1853 patients.

Authors:  Alberto Marchet; Simone Mocellin; Alessandro Ambrosi; Paolo Morgagni; Domenico Garcea; Daniele Marrelli; Franco Roviello; Giovanni de Manzoni; Annamaria Minicozzi; Giovanni Natalini; Francesco De Santis; Luca Baiocchi; Arianna Coniglio; Donato Nitti
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Accurate lymph node staging is of greater prognostic importance than subclassification of the T2 category for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Abeezar I Sarela; Alan D Turnbull; Daniel G Coit; David Klimstra; Murray F Brennan; Martin S Karpeh
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Adjuvant radiochemotherapy for gastric cancer: Should we use prognostic factors to select patients?

Authors:  Linda Agolli; Riccardo Maurizi Enrici; Mattia Falchetto Osti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Expression analysis of apolipoprotein E and its associated genes in gastric cancer.

Authors:  Xiumin Shi; Jianting Xu; Jihan Wang; Meizi Cui; Yushun Gao; Haitao Niu; Haofan Jin
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 3.  MDCT imaging of the stomach: advances and applications.

Authors:  Prashant Nagpal; Anjali Prakash; Gaurav Pradhan; Aditi Vidholia; Nishant Nagpal; Sachin S Saboo; David M Kuehn; Ashish Khandelwal
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Association between CXCR2 and IL-22BP expression indicate a poor outcome for gastric adenocarcinoma progression.

Authors:  Shi Bin Yang; Fanghai Han; Jian Hai Wu; Zhi Zhao; Wenhua Zhan
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Prediction of T stage in gastric carcinoma by enhanced CT and oral contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.

Authors:  Tao Yu; Xinling Wang; Zilong Zhao; Fan Liu; Xiaoting Liu; Yan Zhao; Yahong Luo
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  miR 1296-5p Inhibits the Migration and Invasion of Gastric Cancer Cells by Repressing ERBB2 Expression.

Authors:  Xia Shan; Wei Wen; Danxia Zhu; Ting Yan; Wenfang Cheng; Zebo Huang; Lan Zhang; Huo Zhang; Tongshan Wang; Wei Zhu; Yichao Zhu; Jun Zhu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Conversion surgery for gastric cancer patients: A review.

Authors:  Tommaso Zurleni; Elson Gjoni; Michele Altomare; Stefano Rausei
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-11-15

Review 8.  Diagnostic Value of Endoscopic Ultrasound after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Restaging: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test.

Authors:  Victor Mihai Sacerdotianu; Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu; Sevastita Iordache; Adina Turcu-Stiolica; Antonio Facciorusso; Stefano Francesco Crinò; Adrian Saftoiu
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.