Tatsuaki Sumiyoshi1, Kenichiro Uemura2, Naru Kondo1, Kenjiro Okada1, Shingo Seo1, Hiroyuki Otsuka1, Shinya Takahashi1. 1. Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. 2. Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. umk@hiroshima-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gastric cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy was firstly reported in 1995, and the number of reports about this topic has increased in the past years. This review aimed to elucidate the clinicopathological features of this disease. METHODS: Data for 32 cases were obtained using literature search, and three cases in our institution were added. RESULTS: Twenty cases were reported from Japan, and fifteen cases were from the Western countries (Germany: 1 case, France: 2 cases, USA: 12 cases). In Japanese and the Western cases, the most dominant indication for pancreaticoduodenectomy was distal bile duct cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, respectively. The most frequently applied procedure of pancreaticoduodenectomy was pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy, respectively. The median length of time interval from pancreaticoduodenectomy to GC detection tended to be shorter in the Japanese cases (61.5 months vs. 115 months). Of all cases, thirteen (37.1%) patients with gastric cancer showed no abdominal symptoms, and eight were diagnosed at regular gastroscopy. Surgical gastrectomy was performed in 30 patients, and among them, concomitant pancreatectomy was performed in six patients. Four patients received reanastomosis of remnant pancreas using pancreaticojejunostomy. Twenty-two (73.3%) patients had undifferentiated carcinomas, and stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 cancer was identified in 14, six, six, and four patients, respectively. All eight patients who had received routine gastroscopy were T1N0M0 stage 1. CONCLUSION: Gastric cancers after pancreaticoduodenectomy including newly reported Japanese cases and our institutional cases were reviewed to make Japanese studies available to a broader scientific audience. Further investigation is necessary to elucidate the most important carcinogens among the various potential local and systemic factors.
PURPOSE: Gastric cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy was firstly reported in 1995, and the number of reports about this topic has increased in the past years. This review aimed to elucidate the clinicopathological features of this disease. METHODS: Data for 32 cases were obtained using literature search, and three cases in our institution were added. RESULTS: Twenty cases were reported from Japan, and fifteen cases were from the Western countries (Germany: 1 case, France: 2 cases, USA: 12 cases). In Japanese and the Western cases, the most dominant indication for pancreaticoduodenectomy was distal bile duct cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, respectively. The most frequently applied procedure of pancreaticoduodenectomy was pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy, respectively. The median length of time interval from pancreaticoduodenectomy to GC detection tended to be shorter in the Japanese cases (61.5 months vs. 115 months). Of all cases, thirteen (37.1%) patients with gastric cancer showed no abdominal symptoms, and eight were diagnosed at regular gastroscopy. Surgical gastrectomy was performed in 30 patients, and among them, concomitant pancreatectomy was performed in six patients. Four patients received reanastomosis of remnant pancreas using pancreaticojejunostomy. Twenty-two (73.3%) patients had undifferentiated carcinomas, and stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 cancer was identified in 14, six, six, and four patients, respectively. All eight patients who had received routine gastroscopy were T1N0M0 stage 1. CONCLUSION: Gastric cancers after pancreaticoduodenectomy including newly reported Japanese cases and our institutional cases were reviewed to make Japanese studies available to a broader scientific audience. Further investigation is necessary to elucidate the most important carcinogens among the various potential local and systemic factors.
Authors: John P Neoptolemos; Daniel H Palmer; Paula Ghaneh; Eftychia E Psarelli; Juan W Valle; Christopher M Halloran; Olusola Faluyi; Derek A O'Reilly; David Cunningham; Jonathan Wadsley; Suzanne Darby; Tim Meyer; Roopinder Gillmore; Alan Anthoney; Pehr Lind; Bengt Glimelius; Stephen Falk; Jakob R Izbicki; Gary William Middleton; Sebastian Cummins; Paul J Ross; Harpreet Wasan; Alec McDonald; Tom Crosby; Yuk Ting Ma; Kinnari Patel; David Sherriff; Rubin Soomal; David Borg; Sharmila Sothi; Pascal Hammel; Thilo Hackert; Richard Jackson; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A C Tersmette; G J Offerhaus; K W Tersmette; F M Giardiello; G W Moore; G N Tytgat; J P Vandenbroucke Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Michael Johannes Pflüger; Matthäus Felsenstein; Ryan Schmocker; Laura DeLong Wood; Ralph Hruban; Kohei Fujikura; Noah Rozich; Floortje van Oosten; Matthew Weiss; William Burns; Jun Yu; John Cameron; Johann Pratschke; Christopher Lee Wolfgang; Jin He; Richard Andrew Burkhart Journal: Surg Open Sci Date: 2020-08-16