Dataset Information

Characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer differentiating distal early gastric cancer.

ABSTRACT: Previous studies reported substantial differences between proximal and distal gastric cancer, however, most of the cases included in these studies were advanced gastric cancers (AGCs). The aim of this study was to investigate the unique characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) by comparing with distal EGC. From March 2007 to March 2016, proximal and distal EGC patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical resection at our institution were matched 1:3 according to age and sex. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and histopathological information. A total of 368 patients were enrolled including 92 (25%) in the proximal and 276 (75%) in the distal group. The proportion of patients who underwent surgery (56.5 vs. 20.3%, p<0.001), undifferentiated type (38.0 vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), tumor size (29.5 ±19.4 vs. 20.3 ±16.8 mm, p<0.001) and submucosal (SM) invasion (60.9 vs. 25.7%, p<0.001) were significantly higher in the proximal group than in the distal group. In multivariate analysis, the proximal location of EGC was a significant risk factor for SM invasion in the total population (odds ratio [OR], 3.541; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.053-6.110; p<0.001), and in subgroup with EGC < 30mm (n = 279) (OR, 5.940; 95% CI, 2.974-11.862; p<0.001). In conclusion, careful therapeutic decision of proximal EGC is essential due to the different histopathological characteristics such as large tumor size and higher potential for SM invasion.

SUBMITTER: Koh JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6764682 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer differentiating distal early gastric cancer.

Koh Jin Sung JS Joo Moon Kyung MK Park Jong-Jae JJ Lee Beom Jae BJ Chun Hoon Jai HJ Lee Sang Woo SW Jang You-Jin YJ Mok Young-Jae YJ

PloS one 20190927 9

Previous studies reported substantial differences between proximal and distal gastric cancer, however, most of the cases included in these studies were advanced gastric cancers (AGCs). The aim of this study was to investigate the unique characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) by comparing with distal EGC. From March 2007 to March 2016, proximal and distal EGC patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical resection at our institution were matched 1:3 according to age and sex. We re ...[more]

PMID: 31560720

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The prognostic relevance of gastric tumor location has been reported and debated. Our study was conducted to examine the differences in clinicopathological features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) between patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) and distal gastric cancer (DGC). Patients and Methods:Patients with PGC or DGC were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) during 1997-2017. Survival analysis was performed via Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Results:We reviewed 16,119 cases of gastric cancer patients, including 6,479 of PGC and 9,640 of DGC. PGC patients presented as older patients (61.5 versus 56.4 years, P<0.001) and more males (82.9% versus 68.2%, P<0.001). Compared with DGC, PGC was more likely to be in later pT stage (pT3 and pT4, 65.0% versus 52.8%, P<0.001) and lymph node metastasis (54.8% versus 50.9%, P<0.001). In univariate analysis, PGC patients had a worse survival outcome in stage I (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.42-2.94) but a better prognosis in stage IV (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) when compared to DGC patients. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that PGC was not an independent predictor for poor survival (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.14). Results from multivariate analysis also revealed that pT4, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, no gastrectomy, and Borrmann IV were independent predictors associated with poor survival for both PGC and DGC patients. Additional prognostic factors for PGC patients included underweight (BMI < 18.5) (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.58), linitis plastica (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25-3.65), and overweight (23 ? BMI <27.5) (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.90). During the 20-year study period, the 5-year OS increased significantly for both PGC and DGC, with the increase rate of 91.7% and 67.7%, respectively. Conclusion:In China, PGC significantly differed from DGC in clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors. However, there was no significant relationship between survival outcome and gastric tumor location.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, gastric cancer is the third most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death. Proximal and distal gastric cancers have distinct clinical and biological behaviors. The microbial composition and metabolic differences in proximal and distal gastric cancers have not been fully studied and discussed.MethodsIn this study, the gastric microbiome of 13 proximal gastric cancer tissues, 16 distal gastric cancer tissues, and their matched non-tumor tissues were characterized using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Additionally, 10 proximal gastric cancer tissues, 11 distal gastric cancer tissues, and their matched non-tumor tissues were assessed by untargeted metabolomics.ResultsThere was no significant difference in microbial diversity and richness between the proximal and distal gastric cancer tissues. At the genus level, the abundance of Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, Porphyromonas, Catonella, Proteus, Oribacterium, and Moraxella were significantly increased in Proximal T, whereas that of Methylobacterium_Methylorubrum was significantly increased in Distal T. The untargeted metabolomics analysis revealed 30 discriminative metabolites between Distal T and Distal N. In contrast, there were only 4 discriminative metabolites between Proximal T and Proximal N. In distal gastric cancer, different metabolites were scattered through multiple pathway, including the sphingolipid signaling pathway, arginine biosynthesis, protein digestion and absorption, alanine, aspartate and, glutamate metabolism, etc.In proximal gastric cancer, differential microbial metabolites were mainly related to hormone metabolism.ConclusionMethylobacterium-Methylorubrum was significantly increased in Distal T, positively correlated with cancer-promoting metabolites, and negatively correlated with cancer-inhibiting metabolites. Rikenellaceae_RC_gut_group was significantly increased in Proximal T and positively correlated with cancer-promoting metabolites. Further studies regarding the functions of the above-mentioned microorganisms and metabolites were warranted as the results may reveal the different mechanisms underlying the occurrence and development of proximal and distal gastric cancers and provide a basis for future treatments.ImportanceFirst, the differences in microbial composition and metabolites between the proximal and distal gastric cancers were described; then, the correlation between microbiota and metabolites was preliminarily discussed. These microbes and metabolites deserve further investigations as they may reveal the different mechanisms involved in the occurrence and development of proximal and distal gastric cancers and provide a basis for future treatments.

Dataset Information

Characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer differentiating distal early gastric cancer.

Publications

Characteristics of proximal early gastric cancer differentiating distal early gastric cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets