4.7 Article

Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic analysis of Lauren classification in gastric adenocarcinoma in China

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-58

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Lauren classification; Prognostic analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: According to the Lauren classification, gastric adenocarcinomas are divided into diffuse and intestinal types. The causative attribution explaining the dismal prognosis of diffuse-type remains unknown. Methods: We examined the archive of 1000 patients with gastric adenocarcinomas who received radical gastrectomy in our center and assessed the effect of the Lauren classification on survival in a multivariate approach. Moreover we compared the variation of clinical features between the diffuse-type and intestinal-type and explored the contributing factors for the prognostic difference. Results: There were 805 resectable patients for the final analysis. Diffuse-type comprised of 48.7% in the gastric carcinoma in our group and showed poorer prognosis than intestinal-type (P=0.013). Multivariate analysis revealed that independent prognostic factors for gastric carcinoma patients were T stage (P<0.001), N stage (P<0.001) tumor size (P<0.001) and Lauren classification (P=0.003). For the clinical features, diffuse-type was significantly associated with younger age (p<0.001), female preponderance (p < 0.001), distal location (P<0.001), advanced pT (p < 0.001), advanced pN (p < 0.001) and advanced TNM stage (p = 0.027). Conclusions: Diffuse type adenocarcinoma carries a worse prognosis that may be partially explained by the tendency of this subtype to present at more advanced T and N stage. However, Lauren classification has prognostic significance that is independent of T and N stage as well as other prognostic variables based on the multivariate cox analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available