4.5 Article

Prophylactic total gastrectomy in the management of hereditary tumor syndromes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 1825-1833

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2656-9

关键词

Prophylactic total gastrectomy; Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer; Juvenile polyposis syndrome; CDH1; SMAD4

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Germline mutations in several genes confer a relevant lifetime risk of gastric cancer. In this context, an increasing involvement of a surgeon can be seen, mainly with the question of performing a prophylactic operation. Patients with hereditary tumor syndromes predisposing for gastric cancer who received care leading to prophylactic total gastrectomy in our Center for Hereditary Tumor Syndromes were analyzed. For each patient, the multidisciplinary decision-making process, the perioperative course, and the histopathologic findings were assessed. Short-term morbidity was evaluated based on the medical reports. The analysis includes nine patients (six female, three male) with a median age of 41.6 (range 23-60) years. Indication for prophylactic total gastrectomy was based on family history and genetic analysis (eight patients with a germline mutation of the CDH1 gene and one patient with a SMAD4 mutation). Removal of the entire gastric mucosa was documented intraoperatively by fresh frozen section examination. Extended (DII) lymphadenectomy was performed in four patients. Histopathologic examination of gastrectomy specimens revealed six patients (6/9, 67 %) with multifocal signet ring cell carcinomas. In our series, prophylactic total gastrectomy was a safe procedure without mortality and low morbidity. Patients with hereditary syndromes predisposing for gastric cancer should be evaluated for this curative procedure in a specialized center. Further research is necessary, and the implementation of nationwide registers including patients with prophylactic gastrointestinal operations due to hereditary tumor syndrome is advisable.

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

4.5
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