| Literature DB >> 34141939 |
Oscar Paredes Torres1, Sofia Prado Cucho2, Luis Taxa Rojas2, Carlos Luque-Vasquez1, Ivan Chavez1, Eduardo Payet Meza1, Eloy Ruiz Figueroa1, Francisco Berrospi Espinoza1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of tumor deposits (TDs) in the staging of gastric cancer is currently debatable. TDs are defined as tumoral nodules in perigastric adipose tissue with no evidence of lymphatic, vascular, or neural structures. Clinicopathological factors related to the presence of TDs are not well defined. This study aimed to identify the clinicopathological factors associated with the presence of TDs in resected gastric cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: Gastric cancer; Pathology; Surgery; Tumor deposits (TDs)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34141939 PMCID: PMC8188374 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Hematoxylin-eosin staining (H&E) shows tumor deposits in gastric carcinoma. Tumor cells are scattered through the perinodal fat tissue. A Magnification × 100, B Magnification × 400.
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy with and without Tumor Deposits.
| All Gastrectomies | TD | TD (+) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | n = 80 (72%) | n = 31 (28%) | ||
| Age | 60.9 ± 14.1 | 61.8 ± 14.2 | 58.4 ± 13.7 | 0.25 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 46 (41.4) | 28 (35) | 18 (58) | |
| Female | 65 (58.6) | 52 (65) | 13 (42) | |
| Tumor Location | 0.92 | |||
| Distal | 57 (51.4) | 41 (51) | 16 (51.6) | |
| Middle | 45 (40.5) | 32 (40.3) | 13 (41.9) | |
| Upper | 9 (8.1) | 7 (8.7) | 2 (6.5) | |
| Histological Subtype | 0.26 | |||
| Tubular Adenocarcinoma | 51 (46) | 38 (47.5) | 13 (41.9) | |
| Signet Cell Carcinoma | 50 (45) | 33 (41.3) | 17 (54.8) | |
| Mixed Carcinoma | 10 (9) | 9 (11.3) | 1 (3.2) | |
| Tumor Grade | 0.06 | |||
| Well Differentiated | 13 (12) | 13 (16) | 0 | |
| Moderately Differentiated | 32 (28) | 22 (28) | 10 (32) | |
| Poorly Differentiated | 66 (60) | 45 (56) | 21 (68) | |
| Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy | 0.53 | |||
| No | 105 (94.5) | 76 (95) | 29 (93.5) | |
| Yes | 6 (5.5) | 4 (5) | 2 (6.5) | |
| Depth of Invasion (pT) | ||||
| T1a | 10 (9) | 10 (12.5) | 0 | |
| T1b | 10 (9) | 10 (12.5) | 0 | |
| T2 | 15 (13.5) | 13 (16.3) | 2 (6.5) | |
| T3 | 35 (31.5) | 28 (35) | 7 (22.5) | |
| T4a | 36 (32.4) | 18 (22.5) | 18 (58) | |
| T4b | 5 (4.5) | 1 (1.25) | 4 (13) | |
| Lymph Nodes Resected, mean ± SD | 69.5 ± 25.7 | 70.8 ± 26.8 | 66.4 ± 22.9 | 0.70 |
| Lymph Nodes Metastasis (pN) | ||||
| N0 | 29 (26.1) | 27 (33.8) | 2 (6.4) | |
| N1 | 20 (18) | 16 (20) | 4 (12.9) | |
| N2 | 14 (12.6) | 10 (12.5) | 4 (12.9) | |
| N3a | 22 (19.8) | 17 (21.2) | 5 (16.2) | |
| N3b | 26 (23.4) | 10 (12.5) | 16 (51.6) | |
| pTNM Stage | ||||
| Stage I | 25 (22.5) | 24 (30) | 1 (3.2) | |
| Stage II | 25 (22.5) | 20 (25) | 5 (16.1) | |
| Stage III | 61 (55) | 36 (45) | 25 (80.7) | |
| Lymphovascular Invasion | ||||
| Present | 86 (77.5) | 55 (68.8) | 31 (100%) | |
| Absent | 25 (22.5) | 25 (31.2) | 0 | |
| Perineural Invasion | 0.18 | |||
| Present | 66 (59.5) | 45 (56.2) | 21 (67.7) | |
| Absent | 45 (40.5) | 35 (43.8) | 10 (32.3) | |
| HER2 IHC Score System | 0.929 | |||
| Negative Score 0 | 26 (23.4) | 18 (22.5) | 8 (25.8) | |
| Negative Score 1+ | 38 (34.2) | 28 (35) | 10 (32.2) | |
| Equivocal Score 2+ | 30 (27) | 21 (26.2) | 9 (29) | |
| Positive Score 3+ | 8 (7.2) | 5 (6.25) | 3 (9.6) | |
| Type Of Gastrectomy | 0.33 | |||
| Distal Gastrectomy | 59 (53.2) | 44 (55) | 15 (48) | |
| Total Gastrectomy | 52 (46.8) | 36 (45) | 16 (52) | |
| Tumor Size, mean ± SD | 5.7 ± 2.9 | 5.2 ± 2.8 | 6.96 ± 2.7 | |
| <5cm | 43 (53.8) | 5 (16.1) | ||
| ≥5cm | 37 (46.2) | 26 (83.9) | ||
The values that are in bold are those that are statistically significant in the statistical analysis (p = <0.05).
TD: Tumor deposits.
n: Number of patients.
At the date of surgery.
SD: standard deviation.
mean and standard deviation in centimeters.
Figure 2Schema of the relationship between the location of tumor deposits and the primary tumor in 31 patients. A distal tumors, B middle tumors, C proximal tumors.
Univariate analysis of factors associated with the presence of tumor deposits.
| Univariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI | p- Value | |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 1 | ||
| Male | 2.57 | (1.10–6.01) | |
| Tumor Size | |||
| <5cm | 1 | ||
| ≥5cm | 5.9 | (2.05–16.93) | |
| Depth of Invasion (pT) | |||
| T1-T2-T3 | 1 | ||
| T4 | 7.84 | (3.09–19.9) | |
| Lymph Nodes Metastasis (pN) | |||
| N0–N1–N2–N3a | 1 | ||
| N3b | 7.46 | (2.83–19.63) | |
| pTNM Stage | |||
| Stage I-II | 1 | ||
| Stage III | 5.35 | (1.98–14.48) | |
The values that are in bold are those that are statistically significant in the statistical analysis (p = <0.05).
OR: Odds Ratio.
CI: Confidence Interval.
Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with the presence of tumor deposits.
| Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI | p- Value | |
| Tumor Size | |||
| <5cm | 1 | ||
| ≥5cm | 3.7 | (1.17–11.6) | |
| Depth of Invasion (pT) | |||
| T1-T2-T3 | 1 | ||
| T4 | 3.8 | (1.31–10.86) | |
| Lymph Nodes Metastasis (pN) | |||
| N0–N1–N2–N3a | 1 | ||
| N3b | 3.2 | (1.06–9.7) | |
The values that are in bold are those that are statistically significant in the statistical analysis (p = <0.05).
OR: Odds Ratio.
CI: Confidence Interval.