4.3 Article

Well differentiated carcinoma with a poor prognosis: a retrospective analysis of papillary gastric adenocarcinoma

期刊

SURGERY TODAY
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 1387-1396

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02289-3

关键词

Neoplasm; Papillary adenocarcinoma; Prognosis; Stomach

类别

资金

  1. Programs of National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572372]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1303202]
  3. National Precision Medicine Research Program [2017YFC0908300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that patients with papillary gastric adenocarcinoma (PGC) were generally older and had tumors located in the upper 1/3 of the stomach, with characteristics such as serosal infiltration and early lymph node metastasis. The risk factor for poor survival in PGC patients was papillary adenocarcinoma.
Purpose To explore the clinicopathological features and prognosis of papillary gastric adenocarcinoma (PGC). Methods The subjects of this retrospective analysis were 1525 patients with gastric cancer in a single center in China. Results The patients with PGC were generally of advanced age and the tumor was located in the upper 1/3 of the stomach. PGC was well or moderately differentiated, with serosal infiltration, early lymph node metastasis, TNM stages I/II, liver metastasis, and a short postoperative overall survival time. Patients with the secondary pathological type of papillary adenocarcinoma presented with clinicopathological similarities to those with primary PGC. PGC was a risk factor for poor survival in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Conclusion Papillary gastric adenocarcinoma (PGC) showed different clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis to other types of gastric cancer (GC), even if it was not the primary pathological type. The higher the proportion of papillary adenocarcinoma in gastric cancer samples, the shorter the postoperative survival time of patients. PGC needs further multicenter studies.

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