| Literature DB >> 27624750 |
Yoshinori Sato1, Takashi Fujino2, Akira Kasagawa3, Ryo Morita3, Shun-Ichiro Ozawa3, Yasumasa Matsuo3, Tadateru Maehata4, Hiroshi Yasuda3, Masayuki Takagi2, Fumio Itoh3.
Abstract
A 77-year-old woman underwent an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy screening examination, and a 10-mm reddish, submucosal tumor-like lesion was found on the posterior wall of the fornix. Biopsy was performed, but there was no evidence of malignancy, so annual follow-up by UGI endoscopy was decided upon. After 12 years, examination of another biopsy specimen revealed an adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type. There had been no significant change in the size or shape of the lesion over the long follow-up period. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed, and en bloc resection was achieved. Histopathologically, the tumor appeared as a flat elevated lesion measuring 11 × 10 mm. It was composed of irregularly shaped glands and invaded the submucosa up to 300 µm. Immunohistochemical examination involving specific antibodies to pepsinogen I, MIST-1, MUC6, and H+/K+-ATPase confirmed the fundic gland differentiation of the irregularly shaped glands together with a very low Ki-67 labeling index. Thus, gastric adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type (GAFG) was diagnosed. Four years have passed since the ESD, and there has been no recurrence. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of the long-term natural history of GAFG. Over the 12 years, no morphologic changes were observed; the tumor remained within the submucosal layer. Our observations in this case strengthen the notion that GAFG is a specific type of gastric adenocarcinoma of low-grade malignancy.Entities:
Keywords: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland type (GAFG); Natural history
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27624750 PMCID: PMC5097784 DOI: 10.1007/s12328-016-0680-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1865-7265
Fig. 1Endoscopic appearance of the lesion and histologic features of the biopsy specimen obtained upon the initial endoscopic examination (H&E stain). a The initial endoscopic examination revealed a reddish, 10-mm, elevated lesion on the posterior wall of the fornix (shown here in the polaroid photograph obtained at the time). b Non-neoplastic glands had been detected in the initial biopsy specimen, but upon re-examination of the original specimen after endoscopic treatment, we noted atypical glands corresponding to GAFG (black arrows). Black bar 1 mm. Inset high magnification view of the GAFG
Fig. 2Endoscopic appearance of the lesion at 8 years later after initial endoscopy. Endoscopic examination performed 8 years later revealed a smooth, reddish, submucosal tumor-like elevated lesion, 10 mm in diameter. Black pigmentation and dilated vessels with a branching architecture were seen on the surface of the tumor
Fig. 3Endoscopic examination performed before endoscopic submucosal dissection confirmed the presence of (a) a well-circumscribed, 10-mm, reddish, smooth, elevated lesion in the posterior wall of the fornix. The tumor was soft, and there was no evidence of expanding appearance. There was no clear line of demarcation. Dilated vessels exhibiting a branching architecture were observed on the surface. Atrophic change was not seen in the surrounding mucosa. b Magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging revealed a regular MV pattern and a regular MS pattern without a demarcation line. c The resected tissue measured 28 × 22 mm, and the flat elevated lesion measured 11 × 10 mm
Fig. 4Histopathologic features of the ESD specimen. a Histologic slides under loupe magnification showing the spread of the adenocarcinoma. Black bar 2 mm. b Low magnification image shows irregularly shaped neoplastic glands lying mainly in the lower portion of the oxyntic mucosa. Black bar 500 μm. c High magnification image. Note the irregularly shaped glands consisting of two types of atypical glandular cells, those with basophilic cytoplasm, and those with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Black bar 200 μm. d Spread of the carcinoma mapped on the surgical specimen. Black line cut line, Red line spread of the carcinoma. Orange arrows from the cut lines point to the respective loupe images (a)
Fig. 5Histologic and immunohistochemical features of the adenocarcinoma and non-neoplastic fundic glands. a H&E stained tissue. The border between GAFG and non-neoplastic oxyntic mucosa is evident. b Pepsinogen-I staining. The neoplastic glands are more weakly stained than the non-neoplastic fundic glands. c Staining for MIST-1. Many positively stained cells are evident in the neoplastic glands. d Staining for H+/K+-ATPase. Positively stained neoplastic cells are prominent in the upper portion of the mucosa. e Staining for MUC6. The distribution of positively stained neoplastic cells corresponds well with that of cells stained positively for MIST-1. f Ki-67 staining. Black bar 200 μm
Fig. 6Histologic comparison of neoplastic glands and non-neoplastic fundic glands (hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections). a Protrusions are visible in the neoplastic cells showing not only parietal cell but also chief cell differentiation. b Protrusions are not seen in the non-neoplastic parietal cells. Black bar 100 μm
Reports of gastric cancer of fundic gland type, 2011–2015
| Authors | No. of patients | Age (years) | Sex (M/F) | Tumor locationa | Tumor morphology | Tumor size (mm) | Invasion depthb | Ly+/v+ | Follow-up time (months) | Recurrence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ueo et al. [ | 1 | 62 | 1/0 | M | 0-IIc | 44 | SS | 1/2 | 30 | None |
| Ueyama et al. [ | 23 | 66.5 (51–78) | 15/8 | U16/M6/L1 | c | 12 | M/6/SM17 | 2/0 | 29.1 (2–75) | None |
| Miyazawa et al. [ | 5 | 72.2 (67–78) | 3/2 | U5 | d | 15 | SM5 | 1/0 | 10.6 (2–20) | None |
| Singhi et al. [ | 10 | 64.2 (44–79) | 4/6 | U10 | 0-I 10 | 4.9 | M10 | 0/0 | 15 (6–39) | None |
| Park et al. [ | 3 | 65.3 (47–76) | 3/0 | U1/M1/L1 | 0-IIa + IIc 3 | 26.3 | M1/SM2 | 0/0 | 24.3 (11–32) | None |
| Kato et al. [ | 1 | 80 | 1/0 | U | 0-IIa | 30 | SM | 0/0 | 3 | None |
| Fukatsu et al. [ | 1 | 56 | 1/0 | U | 0-IIa | 5 | SM | 0/0 | 12 | None |
| Yahata et al. [ | 1 | 47 | 1/0 | M | 0-IIc | 18 | SM | 0/1 | – | – |
| Fujimoto et al. [ | 1 | 72 | 1/0 | U | 0-IIa | 15 | SM | 0/0 | 12 | None |
| Miyaoka et al. [ | 1 | 59 | 0/1 | U | 0-IIb | 8 | SM | 0/0 | 17 | None |
| Fujisawa et al. [ | 1 | 50 | 1/0 | M | 0-IIc | 40 | SM | 0/0 | – | – |
Number of patients is shown unless otherwise indicated
Mean (and range) values are shown when the number of patients is greater than 1
– Not reported
aTumor location is shown as U, M, L (upper, middle, lower third of the stomach) with the corresponding number of patients
bInvasion depth is shown as M, SM, SS (mucosa, submucosa, subserosa) with the corresponding number of patients
cSMT (n = 13), 0-I (n = 1), 0-IIa (n = 2), 0-IIb (n = 1), 0-IIc (n = 6)
d0-IIa (n = 4), 0-IIb (n = 1)