Annals of Surgical Oncology Sign the Guestbook
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1245/s10434-008-9884-3
Annals of Surgical Oncology 15:1959-1967 (2008)
© 2008 Society of Surgical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kunisaki, C.
Right arrow Articles by Shimada, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kunisaki, C.
Right arrow Articles by Shimada, H.

Original Article

Tumor Diameter as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Chikara Kunisaki, MD, PhD1, Hirochika Makino, MD, PhD1, Ryo Takagawa, MD1, Takashi Oshima, MD, PhD1, Yasuhiko Nagano, MD, PhD1, Takashi Kosaka, MD2, Hidetaka A. Ono, MD, PhD2, Yuichi Otsuka, MD, PhD2, Hirotoshi Akiyama, MD, PhD2, Yasushi Ichikawa, MD, PhD2 and Hiroshi Shimada, MD, PhD2

1 Department of Surgery, Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University, 4-57, Urafune-cho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, 232-0024, Japan
2 Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University, Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Chikara Kunisaki, MD, PhD; E-mail: s0714{at}med.yokohama-cu.ac.jp

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of tumor diameter in gastric cancer.

Methods: The study group comprised a series of 1215 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy. The appropriate tumor diameter cutoff value was determined. Prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: The tumor diameter cutoff value was 100 mm. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor site, macroscopic appearance, tumor diameter, depth of invasion, and presence of lymph node metastasis independently affected prognosis in all patients. Multivariate analysis of patients with larger tumors identified depth of invasion as an independent prognostic factor. A comparison between patients with smaller and larger tumors showed marked differences in the survival of those with stage II, IIIA, and IIIB tumors. A comparison of clinicopathological factors between stage II and III patients revealed that tumors occupying the entire stomach, ill-defined, undifferentiated, and serosa-penetrating tumors, and peritoneal metastases were far more frequent in patients with larger tumors.

Conclusions: Tumor diameter in gastric cancer is a reliable prognostic factor that might be a candidate for use in the staging system. To improve outcomes for patients with tumors ≥100 mm in diameter, it is necessary to establish therapeutic strategies for peritoneal metastasis, particularly in stage II and III tumors.

Key Words: Gastrectomy • Peritoneal metastasis • Prognosis • Tumor diameter






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.