4.3 Article

Comparison of clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics in patients with mucinous carcinoma and signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 109-116

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1239192

关键词

Gastric cancer; mucin; mucinous gastric carcinoma; signet ring cell carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To determine whether there are any clinicopathological or prognostic differences between mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC). Methods: Pathological parameters, clinical parameters, and treatment efficacy were compared in patients with MGC and SRCC. Results: In total, 193 patients (51 with MGC and 142 with SRCC) were included in this study. Patients with SRCC in particular had notably higher lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, rate of Borrmann types III and IV, and stage III-IV cancer (according to its TNM stage) compared with patients with MGC. However, tumor size was larger in patients with MGC (tumor size >= 5 cm). Median overall survival (OS) was 29.8 months in the MGC group and 16.6 months in the SRCC group (p =.04). The median OS in stage I-Ill patients was 59.9 and 42.5 months in the MGC and SRCC groups, respectively (p =.35). Comparing OS between MGC and SRCC stage IV patients revealed that the median OS was 10.1 and 8.8 months, respectively (p =.96). Multivariate analysis of the entire patient group revealed that the presence of weight loss at diagnosis, distant metastasis, and lymph node involvement were significantly related to OS. Multivariate analysis also revealed that weight loss at the diagnosis and T3-4 tumors were significant factors influencing OS in the stage I-Ill group. Conclusions: Patients with SRCC had generally poorer prognosis and lower survival rates compared with patients with MGC. Further studies on the prognosis and treatment plan based on the pathological subtypes of SRCC and MGC are still needed.

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

4.3
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