| Literature DB >> 34622010 |
Shinji Kitamura1,2,3,4, Naoki Muguruma1, Koichi Okamoto1, Kaizo Kagemoto1, Yoshifumi Kida1, Yasuhiro Mitsui1, Hiroyuki Ueda1, Tomoyuki Kawaguchi1, Hiroshi Miyamoto1, Yasushi Sato1, Rika Aoki2, Joji Shunto3, Yoshimi Bando4, Tetsuji Takayama1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autoimmune gastritis is known to be associated with neoplastic lesions but the relationship between autoimmunity and tumorigenesis have not been sufficiently clarified. The aim of this study is to assess the clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer cases associated with autoimmune gastritis.Entities:
Keywords: endoscopy; gastric cancer; stomach
Year: 2021 PMID: 34622010 PMCID: PMC8485395 DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12656
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JGH Open ISSN: 2397-9070
Figure 1Endoscopic appearance of autoimmune gastritis. (a) A view of the corpus showing marked vascular visibility both on the lesser curvature and the entire greater curvature. (b) A view of the antrum showing no atrophic pattern.
Figure 2Flowchart of selection of patients for this study. AIG, autoimmune gastritis; EGC, early gastric cancer; EGD, esophagastroduodenoscopy; IFA, anti‐internal factor antibody; PCA, anti‐parietal cell antibody.
Patients’ characteristics
| Sex | |
| Male | 14 (58.3) |
| Female | 10 (41.7) |
| Age (year, mean, [range]) | 70.8 [53–88] |
| PCA | |
| ×10 | 8 (33.3) |
| ×20 | 3 (12.5) |
| ×40 | 8 (33.3) |
| ×80 | 3 (12.5) |
| Unknown | 2 (8.3) |
| IFA | |
| Positive | 8 (33.3) |
| Negative | 16 (66.7) |
| State of | |
| Positive | 9 (37.5) |
| Negative | 15 (62.5) |
| Eradication history of | |
| Yes | 4(16.7) |
| No | 20 (83.3) |
| Comorbidity (%) | |
| Autoimmune disease | 5 (20.8) |
| Pernicious anemia | 4 (16.7) |
| Concomitant gastric disease | |
| Adenoma | 1 (4.2) |
| Hyperplastic polyp | 1 (4.2) |
| Xanthoma | 16 (66.7) |
| Serum gastrin level pg./mL (mean, [range]) | 1133 [107–4039] |
IFA, anti‐internal factor antibody; PCA, anti‐parietal cell antibody.
Characteristics of the tumor in the AIG group
| Tumor location | |
| Upper part | 9 (28.1) |
| Middle part | 17 (53.1) |
| Lower part | 6 (18.8) |
| Morphological type | |
| I | 3 (9.4) |
| IIa | 9 (28.1) |
| IIb | 5 (15.6) |
| IIc | 15 (46.9) |
| III | 0 (0.0) |
| Tumor size (mm, mean, [range]) | 21.8 [7–100] |
| Depth of invasion | |
| mucosa | 29 (90.6) |
| submucosa | 3 (9.4) |
| Histopathology | |
| tub1 | 16 (50.0) |
| tub2 | 5 (15.6) |
| pap | 7 (21.9) |
| sig | 3 (9.4) |
| por | 1 (3.1) |
pap, papillary adenocarcinoma; por, poorly differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; sig, signet ring cell carcinoma; tub1, well‐differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; tub2, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma.
Relationship between clinicopathological features of gastric cancer patients between autoimmune gastritis and control groups
| AIG ( | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, | 0.044 | ||
| Male | 14 (58.3) | 231 (76.3) | |
| Female | 10 (41.7) | 70 (23.3) | |
| Age (year, mean, [range]) | 70.8 [53–88] | 71.1 [38–90] | n.s |
| Location | 0.032 | ||
| Upper | 9 | 46 | |
| Middle | 17 | 150 | |
| Lower | 6 | 124 | |
| Morphological Type | 0.022 | ||
| I | 3 | 7 | |
| IIa | 9 | 70 | |
| IIb | 5 | 26 | |
| IIc | 15 | 217 | |
| Tumor size (mean ± SD) | 21.8 ± 19.1 | 15.6 ± 10.0 | 0.027 |
| Depth of invasion | n.s | ||
| Mucosa | 29 | 283 | |
| Submucosa | 3 | 37 | |
| Histopathology | <0.001 | ||
| tub1 | 16 | 242 | |
| tub2 | 5 | 42 | |
| pap | 7 | 2 | |
| sig | 3 | 28 | |
| por | 1 | 5 | |
| Other | 0 | 1 | |
| Multiple gastric cancer | 6 | 47 | n.s |
| Simultaneous | 3 | 17 | |
| Metachronous | 3 | 30 |
AIG, autoimmune gastritis; n.s, not significant; pap, papillary adenocarcinoma; por, poorly differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; sig, signet ring cell carcinoma; tub1, well‐differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; tub2, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma.
Figure 3A representative case of adenocarcinoma associated with autoimmune gastritis. (a) A 4 cm‐sized protruded tumor was seen in the middle body, (b) A retroflexed view showing semipedunculated shape and nodular surface pattern. (c) Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed successfully. (d) Macroscopic finding of the specimen (H &E staining. Squared area is showing E). (e) Microscopic appearance with low‐power magnification demonstrated papillary adenocarcinoma (H &E staining. Squared area is showing F). (f) Microscopic appearance with high‐power view.