Gastric Stump Cancer: More Than Just Another Proximal Gastric Cancer and Demanding a More Suitable TNM Staging System

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2013

Authors

André Pinho (Author) FMUP; João Pinto de Sousa (Author) FMUP

Journal

Title: BioMed Research International

Vol. 2013

Pages: 1-6

ISSN: 2314-6133

Publisher: Hindawi

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 14 Citations

Scopus - 16 Citations

Pubmed / Medline

Scientific classification

FOS: Medical and Health sciences > Clinical medicine

CORDIS: Health sciences > Medical sciences > Medicine > Surgery

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-006-FM4

DOI: 10.1155/2013/781896

Abstract (EN): Background. Considerable controversy persists about the biological behavior of gastric stump cancer (GSC). The aim of this study is to clarify if this cancer is just another proximal gastric cancer or if it emerges as a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Methods. This review of a prospectively collected gastric cancer database identified 73 patients with GSC in a single institution between January 1980 and June 2012 and compared them with 328 patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) and 291 patients with esophagogastric junction cancer (EGJC). Results. Patients with GSC were predominantly males. Eighty-three percent of GSC penetrated the subserosal or the serosal layers. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved in GSC patients was significantly lower than in PGC patients or in EGJC patients. Cumulative survival curves were not different between GSC, PGC, or EGJC patients. Unlike that observed in PGC and in EGJC, no significant differences in cumulative survival according to the TNM staging system were observed in GSC cases. Conclusions. The outcome of patients with GSC displayed significant differences when compared to those with other proximal gastric cancers concerning the lack of survival association with the TNM staging system. Therefore a more suitable staging system should be designed for these unique cancers.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 6