Lanqing Cao1, Zhaoyong Wang1, Liwei Duan2, Lijuan Wei3. 1. Department of Pathology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin, China. 2. Department of Endoscopy, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin, China. 3. Department of Endoscopy, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin, China. m15526852362@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No reliable method has been reported for determining tumor budding with frozen sections during surgical procedures. This study investigated endoscopic features predictive of tumor budding in early gastric cancers (EGC). METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated data from 137 patients diagnosed with EGC who underwent endoscopy, followed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); 71 patients underwent a second gastrectomy. Based on pathological analyses, lesions were categorized as being positive (n = 80) or negative for tumor budding (n = 57). Endoscopic features were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Patient survival rates were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS: Mean age of our study population was 66 years (range, 31-86 years). The tumor budding-positive cohort (73.3 ± 5.9 years) was significantly older than the tumor budding-negative cohort (56.7 ± 7.6 years) (p < 0.001). Endoscopic features significantly different between tumor budding-positive and budding-negative groups included tumor size (p = 0.003), remarkable redness (p = 0.015), and margin elevation (p < 0.001). Tumor size (odds ratio (OR): 1.561; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.984, 2.285; p = 0.047) and margin elevation (OR: 2.141; 95% CI: 1.147, 5.117; p = 0.003) were independent predictors of tumor budding. Margin elevation was found in 19.3% of tumor budding-negative and 53.8% of budding-positive cases. In the tumor budding-positive group, ESD and second gastrectomy were associated with disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Margin elevation and large tumor size (> 29 mm) of EGCs on endoscopy are promising imaging biomarkers for predicting tumor budding in EGCs. ESD and a second gastrectomy can be better for tumor budding-positive patients with EGCs.
BACKGROUND: No reliable method has been reported for determining tumor budding with frozen sections during surgical procedures. This study investigated endoscopic features predictive of tumor budding in early gastric cancers (EGC). METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated data from 137 patients diagnosed with EGC who underwent endoscopy, followed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); 71 patients underwent a second gastrectomy. Based on pathological analyses, lesions were categorized as being positive (n = 80) or negative for tumor budding (n = 57). Endoscopic features were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Patient survival rates were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS: Mean age of our study population was 66 years (range, 31-86 years). The tumor budding-positive cohort (73.3 ± 5.9 years) was significantly older than the tumor budding-negative cohort (56.7 ± 7.6 years) (p < 0.001). Endoscopic features significantly different between tumor budding-positive and budding-negative groups included tumor size (p = 0.003), remarkable redness (p = 0.015), and margin elevation (p < 0.001). Tumor size (odds ratio (OR): 1.561; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.984, 2.285; p = 0.047) and margin elevation (OR: 2.141; 95% CI: 1.147, 5.117; p = 0.003) were independent predictors of tumor budding. Margin elevation was found in 19.3% of tumor budding-negative and 53.8% of budding-positive cases. In the tumor budding-positive group, ESD and second gastrectomy were associated with disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Margin elevation and large tumor size (> 29 mm) of EGCs on endoscopy are promising imaging biomarkers for predicting tumor budding in EGCs. ESD and a second gastrectomy can be better for tumor budding-positive patients with EGCs.
Authors: Kate O'Connor; Hector H Li-Chang; Steven E Kalloger; Renata D Peixoto; Douglas L Webber; David A Owen; David K Driman; Richard Kirsch; Stefano Serra; Charles H Scudamore; Daniel J Renouf; David F Schaeffer Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Alessandro Lugli; Tatjana Vlajnic; Olivier Giger; Eva Karamitopoulou; Efstratios S Patsouris; George Peros; Luigi M Terracciano; Inti Zlobec Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Matthew Brown; Karim Sillah; Ewen A Griffiths; Ric Swindell; Catherine M West; Richard D Page; Ian M Welch; Susan A Pritchard Journal: Histopathology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Lai Mun Wang; David Kevans; Hugh Mulcahy; Jacintha O'Sullivan; David Fennelly; John Hyland; Diarmuid O'Donoghue; Kieran Sheahan Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: K Tanaka; T Shimura; T Kitajima; S Kondo; S Ide; Y Okugawa; S Saigusa; Y Toiyama; Y Inoue; T Araki; K Uchida; Y Mohri; M Kusunoki Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 7.640