4.7 Article

Lymphatic vessel invasion as a prognostic factor in patients with primary resected adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 874-879

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.12.151

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the value of lymphatic vessel invasion (LVI) as a predictor of survival in patients with primary resected adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). Patients and Methods We prospectively evaluated 459 patients undergoing primary surgical resection for tumors of the esophagogastric junction at our institution between 1992 and 2000 (180 adenocarcinomas of the distal esophagus, AEG I; 140 carcinomas of the cardia, AEG II; and 139 subcardial gastric cancers, AEG III). Median follow-up was 36.8 months. The prevalence of LVI was evaluated by two independent pathologists. Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results The total rate of LVI was 49.9%, with a significant difference between AEG I (38.9%) and AEGII/III (57.0%, P = .0002). Univariate analysis showed a significant correlation between LVI and T category (P < .0001), N category (P < .0001), and resection status (R [residual tumor] category; P < .0001). This was shown for the group of all AEG tumors, as well as for the subgroups AEG I and AEG II/III. On multivariate analysis, LVI was identified as a significant and independent prognostic factor (P = .050) in the population of all patients and in patients with AEG II/III, but not in the subgroup with AEG I. Conclusion These data demonstrate the prognostic significance of LVI in patients with AEG tumors, with marked differences between the subgroups AEG I versus AEG II/III. The lower prevalence and lack of prognostic significance of LVI in AEG I might be explained by inflammation involved in the pathogenesis of this entity.

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