4.1 Article

Unchanging trend of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma in Korea: experience at a single institution based on Siewert's classification

期刊

DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 676-681

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2009.00946.x

关键词

Barrett's esophagus; esophageal adenocarcinoma; esophagogastric junction; gastric cardiac adenocarcinoma; Siewert's classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing in Western countries. It is unclear, however, whether similar changes are occurring in Asia. We therefore investigated the incidence of AEG in Korea, and assessed the clinical characteristics of three types of AEG based on Siewert's classification. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 16 811 patients diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESC, n = 1450) or gastric noncardiac adenocarcinoma (GNCA, n = 14 751) between 1992 and 2006. The patients were divided into three 5-year cohorts (cohort A [1992-1996], n = 2734, cohort B [1997-2001], n = 5727, and cohort C [2002-2006], n = 8350), and the ratios of AEG (n = 610) to non-AEG (ESC and GNCA) in each cohort were compared. Using Siewert's classification, the tumors were categorized into one of three types, and patient demographic features and 5-year survival rates were compared. The ratio of AEG to non-AEG cases did not change over time (0.037, 0.034, and 0.039 for cohorts A, B, and C, respectively; P = 0.40). Of the 610 patients with AEG, 23 (3.7%) had type 1 tumors, 47 (7.7%) had type 2, and 540 (88.5%) had type 3. The 5-year survival rate of patients with type 1 AEG was much lower (4.8 +/- 4.7%) than that of those with type 2 (47.9 +/- 7.8%) and type 3 (47.4 +/- 2.5%) tumors. Unlike in Western countries, the ratio of AEG to non-AEG cases has not increased over time in Korea. Type 1 AEG was rarer and associated with a more unfavorable prognosis in Korea than in Western countries.

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