4.1 Article

Which Is the Optimal Extent of Resection in Middle Third Gastric Cancer between Total Gastrectomy and Subtotal Gastrectomy?

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTRIC CANCER
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 226-233

出版社

KOREAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOC
DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2010.10.4.226

关键词

Gastric neoplasms; Gastrectomy; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In resectable gastric cancer, choice regarding the extent of resection depends on tumor size, location, and distance from resection margin. However, there remains controversy for choice of resection for tumors in the middle third of the stomach. This study investigated patients who underwent gastrectomy in order to analyze the differences between total gastrectomy (TG) and subtotal gastrectomy (STG). Materials and Methods: From 2000 to 2006, 125 patients with a tumor in the middle third of the stomach underwent radical gastric resection at EUMC. We retrospectively conducted comparative analysis for the differences in clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis between TG and STG. Results: The average tumor size was 6.7 cm for TG, and 4.1 cm for STG. The number of metastatic lymph nodes were 13.3 for TG, and 3.7 for STG. Patients with more advanced cancer were more likely to receive TG. The 5-year survival rate for TG was lower (38.1%) than STG (69.0%). However, if tumor stages were stratified, there was no significant difference in the survival rate. Histologically, for the undifferentiated type of cancer (Stage 1, 2), the 5-year survival rate of STG was higher (88.1%) than TG (75.0%). Conclusions: Comparing patients with tumors in the middle third of the stomach who underwent TG and STG, there was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year survival rate. If stages were stratified, the clinicopathological characteristic becomes a key factor in deciding the prognosis, rather than the choice of resection. Thus if the radical resection margin can be obtained for a tumor in the middle third of the stomach, STG is considered instead of TG.

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

4.1
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