4.2 Article

Clinicopathological features and outcomes in patients undergoing radical resection for early gastric cancer with signet ring cell histology

期刊

JOURNAL OF VISCERAL SURGERY
卷 152, 期 6, 页码 357-361

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2015.09.021

关键词

Early gastric cancer; Signet ring cell histology; Prognosis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The signet ring cell histology is regarded as an independent predictor of poor prognosis in advanced gastric adenocarcinomas, but its biologic behavior in early gastric cancer remains highly controversial. Objective: Our objective was to compare the clinicopathological features and outcomes in patients undergoing curative resection between SRCs and non-SRCs histologic types of early gastric cancer. Methods: Clinicopathologic features and the overall survival rates of 334 patients with early gastric cancer undergoing D2 curative resection from January 1994 to December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed and compared according to the histologic type. Results: Clinicopathologic features were comparable between two groups, except age, ulcer findings and the presence of lymph node metastasis. The incidence of recurrence for SRCs group was significantly lower than that for non-SRCs group (10.4% vs 19.6%; P < 0.05). The overall 5-year survival rate was 88.6% in all cases. The overall survival rate of patients in SRCs group was significantly better than that of patients in non-SRCs group (5-year survival, 93.9% vs 85.8%; P = 0.027). Multivariable analysis revealed that SRCs subtype, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that the biological behavior of SRCs was different from other undifferentiated cancer histologic subtypes in early stage. Early gastric cancer with signet ring cell histology had low incidence of lymph node metastasis and a relatively favorable prognosis. (C) 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据