Oncology
Clinical Study
Advanced Gastric Carcinoma with Signet Ring Cell HistologyLi C.a, d · Kim S.a, b · Lai J.F.a, e · Hyung W.J.a, b · Choi W.H.a · Choi S.H.a · Noh S.H.a-caDepartment of Surgery, bCancer Metastasis Research Center, cBrain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; dDepartment of Surgery, Rui Jin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, and eDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: May 21, 2007
Accepted: June 26, 2007
Published online: November 14, 2007
Issue release date: November 2007
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4
ISSN: 0030-2414 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0232 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OCL
Abstract
Background: Gastric signet ring cell carcinoma (SRC) is a histological type based on microscopic characteristics and not on biological behavior. This study compared the clinicopathological features and prognosis of advanced SRC with non-signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (NSRC) of the stomach. Methods: We reviewed the records of 4,759 consecutive patients diagnosed with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma who were resected surgically from 1987 to 2003. Of these, 662 patients (13.9%) had SRC and were compared with 4,097 patients with NSRC. Results: Significant differences were noted in tumor size, Borrmann type, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, peritoneal dissemination and TNM stage. The cumulative 5-year survival rate for advanced SRC was 42.4%, compared with 50.1% in NSRC (p = 0.009). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size ≧5 cm, Borrmann III and IV, T3–4 invasion and SRC histology were independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis. Depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, hepatic and peritoneal metastasis and surgical curability were significant factors affecting survival. SRC histology alone was not an independent prognostic factor. Conclusions: Advanced gastric SRC tends toward deeper tumor invasion and more lymph node and peritoneal metastasis than NSRC. Advanced gastric SRC had a worse prognosis than NSRC. Therefore, curative surgical operation with extended lymph node dissection is recommended.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
-
Watanabe H, Jass JR, Sobin LH: Histological Typing of Esophageal and Gastric Tumors: WHO International Histological Classification of Tumors, ed 2. Berlin, Springer, 1990.
- Lauren P: The two main histological types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so-called intestinal-type carcinoma. An attempt at a histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1965;64:31–49.
- Ming SC: Gastric carcinoma: a pathological classification. Cancer 1977;39:2475–2485.
- Sugano H, Nakamura K, Kato Y: Pathological studies of human gastric cancer. Acta Pathol Jpn 1982;32:329–347.
-
Sobin LH, Wittekind C: International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, ed 5. New York, Wiley-Liss, 1997, pp 59–62.
- Ribeiro MM, Sarmento JA, Simoes SMA, Bastos J: Prognostic significance of Lauren and Ming classifications and other pathologic parameters in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1981;47:780–784.
-
Sugihara H, Hattori T, Fukuda M, Fujita S: Cell proliferation and differentiation in intramucosal and advanced signet-ring cell carcinoma of the human stomach. Virchows Arch 1987;411:117–127.
External Resources
- Theuer CP, Nastanski F, Brewster WR, Butler JA, Anton-Culver H: Signet ring cell histology is associated with unique clinical features but does not affect gastric cancer survival. Am Surg 1999;65:915–921.
- Otsuji E, Yamaguchi Y, Sawai K, Takahashi T: Characterization of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. J Surg Oncol 1998;67:216–220.
- Kunisaki C, Shimada H, Nomura M, Matsuda G, Otsuka Y, Akiyama H: Therapeutic strategy for signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Br J Surg 2004;91:1319–1324.
- Kim JP, Kim SC, Yang HK: Prognostic significance of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Surg Oncol 1994;3:221–227.
- Japanese Gastric Cancer Association: Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer 1998;1:10–24.
- Maehara Y, Sakaguchi Y, Moriguchi S, Orita H, Korenaga D, Kohnoe S, Sugimachi K: Signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Cancer 1992;69:1645–1650.
- Antonioli DA, Goldman H: Changes in the location and type of gastric adenocarcinoma. Cancer 1982;50:775–781.
- Matsui M, Kojima O, Kawakami S, Uehara Y, Takahashi T: The prognosis of patients with gastric cancer possessing sex hormone receptors. Surg Today 1992;22:421–425.
- Yokota T, Ishiyama S, Saito T, Teshima S, Yamada Y, Iwamoto K, Takahashi M, Murata K, Yamauchi H: Is tumour size a prognostic indicator for gastric carcinoma? Anticancer Res 2002;22:3673–3677.
- Adachi Y, Oshiro T, Mori M, Maehara Y, Sugimachi K: Tumor size as a simple prognostic indicator for gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:137–140.
- Cimerman M, Repse S, Jelenc F, Omejc M, Bitenc M, Lamovec J: Comparison of Lauren’s, Ming’s, and WHO histological classifications of gastric cancer as a prognostic factor for operated patients. Int Surg 1994;79:27–32.
- Hyung WJ, Noh SH, Lee JH, Huh JJ, Lah KH, Choi SH, Min JS: Early gastric carcinoma with signet ring cell histology. Cancer 2002;94:78–83.
Article / Publication Details
Received: May 21, 2007
Accepted: June 26, 2007
Published online: November 14, 2007
Issue release date: November 2007
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4
ISSN: 0030-2414 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0232 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OCL
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
