Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2012 Jun 23;16(1):1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10120-012-0163-4

Gastric cancer treated in 2002 in Japan: 2009 annual report of the JGCA nationwide registry

Atsushi Nashimoto 1,, Kohei Akazawa 2, Yoh Isobe 3, Isao Miyashiro 4, Hitoshi Katai 5, Yasuhiro Kodera 6, Shunichi Tsujitani 7, Yasuyuki Seto 8, Hiroshi Furukawa 9, Ichiro Oda 10, Hiroyuki Ono 11, Satoshi Tanabe 12, Michio Kaminishi 13
PMCID: PMC3549249  PMID: 22729699

Abstract

Background

The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) started a new nationwide gastric cancer registration in 2008.

Methods

From 208 participating hospitals, 53 items including surgical procedures, pathological diagnosis, and survival outcomes of 13,626 patients with primary gastric cancer treated in 2002 were collected retrospectively. Data were entered into the JGCA database according to the JGCA classification (13th edition) and UICC TNM classification (5th edition) using an electronic data collecting system. Finally, data of 13,002 patients who underwent laparotomy were analyzed.

Results

The 5-year follow-up rate was 83.3 %. The direct death rate was 0.48 %. UICC 5-year survival rates (5YEARSs)/JGCA 5YEARSs were 92.2 %/92.3 % for stage IA, 85.3 %/84.7 % for stage IB, 72.1 %/70.0 % for stage II, 52.8 %/46.8 % for stage IIIA, 31.0 %/28.8 % for stage IIIB, and 14.9 %/15.3 % for stage IV, respectively. The proportion of patients more than 80 years old was 7.8 %, and their 5YEARS was 51.6 %. Postoperative outcome of the patients with primary gastric carcinoma in Japan have apparently improved in advanced cases and among the aged population when compared with the archival data. Further efforts to improve the follow-up rate are needed.

Conclusions

Postoperative outcome of the patients with primary gastric carcinoma in Japan have apparently improved in advanced cases and among the aged population when compared with the archival data. Further efforts to improve the follow-up rate are needed.

Keywords: Gastric cancer, Nationwide registry, 5-year survival rate (5YEARS), Japan

Introduction

The registration committee of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) started a new registration program in 2008 after a 10-year blank period, and we reported the 5-year follow-up data of the patients treated in 2001 [1]. The registration has been continuing, and here we report the results of those treated in 2002.

Materials and methods

Leading hospitals in Japan voluntarily downloaded and fulfilled the database provided by the JGCA and sent the anonymized data to the JGCA data center. The collected data were analyzed according to the previously reported methods [1].

Results

Data of 14,394 patients were collected from 208 hospitals; 126 (60.6 %) hospitals participated in both years, but 82 hospitals were new, which was a 10 % increase as compared to the previous year (13,067 patients from 187 hospitals). The geographic distribution of the registered patients among the 47 prefectures is illustrated in Fig. 1. In Tokyo, 2,332 patients per year were registered, followed by 1,464 in Osaka. Four other prefectures registered more than 500 patients. On the other hand, the number of registered patients was fewer than 100 in 10 prefectures, and there were no registered patients in 2 prefectures.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Geographic distribution of registered patients by prefecture

Patients with remnant stomach cancer, non-epithelial malignant tumor, and gastric cancer combined with malignant tumor of other organs were excluded. Patients who were treated by endoscopic mucosal resection were also excluded. Data of 768 patients lacked essential items. Consequently, data of the remaining 13,002 patients were used for the final analysis.

The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Data given for each category of patients are: total number of patients, survival rates by year, standard error of 5YEARS, the number of direct death within 30 postoperative days, the number of patients lost to follow-up within 5 years, the number of 5-year survivors, and main cause of death, such as local and/or lymph node metastasis, peritoneal metastasis, liver metastasis, distant metastasis, recurrence at unknown site, other cancer, and other disease. Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 provide cumulative survival curves of patients stratified by essential categories.

Table 1.

Primary cancer

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 years (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Primary cancer 13626 89 2233 88.1 79.6 74.5 71.2 68.9 0.4 7436 454 1483 388 243 322 167 567 333

lost f.u. lost to follow-up, years(%) years of cumulative survival rate, SE standard error, rec recurrence, peritoneal peritoneal recurrence, R recurrence of unknown site

Table 2.

Resected cases and unresected cases and other surgeries

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Resected cases 13002 63 2173 89.8 81.6 76.5 73.1 70.7 0.4 7286 410 1283 357 215 278 158 539 303
Unresected cases 355 21 25 25.7 7.3 2.9 1.9 1.5 0.7 4 37 183 24 24 32 2 12 12

Table 3.

Sex (resected cases)

Categories No. of
patients
Direct death Lost f.u. 1 years (%) 2 years
(%)
3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Male 8887 43 1464 89.7 81.4 76.1 72.5 70.0 0.5 4939 292 805 280 136 203 133 425 210
Female 4115 20 709 90.1 82.2 77.4 74.3 72.3 0.7 2347 118 478 77 79 75 25 114 93

Table 4.

Age (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
<39 297 0 50 93.0 83.2 82.1 80.2 79.4 2.4 190 5 36 1 4 4 0 1 6
40–59 3622 10 581 93.4 86.7 83.2 80.3 78.8 0.7 2316 78 327 67 61 64 28 42 58
60–79 8075 40 1279 89.1 80.5 74.8 71.4 68.9 0.5 4450 282 798 255 142 180 110 387 192
>80 1008 13 263 81.6 71.6 63.9 57.0 51.4 1.8 330 45 122 34 8 30 20 109 47

Table 5.

Tumor location (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
U 2681 18 434 87.3 77.5 71.1 67.1 64.3 1.0 1356 104 267 99 76 68 39 150 88
M 5182 8 881 93.6 88.4 84.4 81.7 79.7 0.6 3322 102 339 101 62 72 48 153 102
L 4249 28 766 90.3 81.8 76.8 73.2 70.8 0.7 2338 159 380 124 46 90 59 200 87
Whole 584 8 62 63.7 37.9 28.7 22.9 19.3 1.7 88 37 256 20 24 45 5 22 25

U upper third, M middle third, L lower third

Table 6.

Macroscopic type (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Type0 6869 13 1294 98.1 96.1 94.0 92.1 90.2 0.4 4959 40 69 31 22 24 105 244 81
Type1 363 0 62 89.1 78.6 71.1 68.2 65.5 2.6 187 12 22 24 9 9 5 20 13
Type2 1717 21 291 87.0 75.8 68.1 63.0 60.4 1.2 798 86 147 118 49 61 20 105 42
Type3 2575 17 364 79.6 63.3 54.3 49.1 46.0 1.0 914 181 532 158 79 102 22 115 108
Type4 923 9 86 63.7 37.9 28.2 21.5 17.7 1.3 127 55 450 12 39 72 2 36 44
Type5 339 2 43 83.9 74.5 67.0 63.7 60.6 2.8 171 16 51 9 12 8 3 13 13

Table 7.

Histological type (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 years (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Papillary adenocarcinoma (pap) 464 6 86 88.2 78.8 70.7 66.7 64.3 2.4 227 15 30 36 7 13 10 26 14
tub 1 2846 9 542 96.2 92.4 88.3 85.9 83.6 0.7 1877 32 71 47 14 29 51 146 37
tub 2 3458 18 585 91.0 82.8 77.0 73.3 70.8 0.8 1936 120 259 131 64 63 48 169 83
por 1 1746 10 301 85.0 75.1 70.1 66.3 64.4 1.2 867 81 192 72 41 63 13 69 47
por 2 2449 15 309 83.0 70.2 64.2 59.6 57.0 1.0 1148 120 530 43 63 80 16 81 59
Signet-ring cell carcinoma (sig) 1581 5 279 94.2 89.0 85.8 83.6 81.5 1.0 1030 18 127 4 17 18 16 30 42
Mucinous adenocarcinoma (muc) 259 0 34 83.7 68.6 61.9 59.3 55.2 3.2 116 14 53 4 5 6 2 11 14
Adenosquamous carcinoma 17 0 0 52.9 29.4 23.5 23.5 23.5 10.3 4 2 1 4 1 0 1 1 3
Squamous cell carcinoma 6 0 0 100.0 66.7 50.0 50.0 50.0 20.4 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
Miscellaneous carcinoma 75 0 18 77.9 69.0 64.2 62.4 58.8 6.1 29 4 6 11 1 1 0 2 3

tub 1 tubular adenocarcinoma, well-differentiated type; tub 2 tubular adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated type; por 1 poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, solid type, por 2, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, non-solid type

Table 8.

Histological findings (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Differentiated type 6768 33 1213 93.0 86.6 81.3 78.1 75.7 0.5 4040 167 360 214 85 105 109 341 134
Undifferentiated type 6035 30 923 86.5 76.5 71.5 67.8 65.5 0.6 3161 233 902 123 126 167 47 191 162
Other type 98 0 18 74.9 61.5 55.7 54.4 51.8 5.3 36 6 7 17 2 2 1 3 6

Table 9.

Lymphatic invasion(ly) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
ly0 5744 10 1089 97.8 95.3 93.3 91.3 89.6 0.4 4108 22 108 21 21 23 80 202 70
ly1 3156 16 524 92.6 84.9 79.7 75.4 72.7 0.8 1833 67 278 88 42 58 38 148 80
ly2 2208 14 321 83.2 69.1 59.8 54.9 51.3 1.1 891 135 370 142 74 87 25 103 60
ly3 1769 23 217 67.1 46.1 36.4 31.2 28.6 1.1 387 183 516 105 77 103 12 78 91

Table 10.

Venous invasion(v) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 years (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
v0 8027 22 1456 95.8 91.6 88.3 85.8 83.4 0.4 5344 105 384 68 57 69 107 308 129
v1 2800 21 405 85.1 72.9 65.1 60.3 57.6 1.0 1284 146 446 110 81 84 32 121 91
v2 1347 11 183 75.5 57.8 48.3 42.9 40.8 1.4 425 100 291 97 44 75 13 68 51
v3 676 9 104 66.1 45.5 38.2 33.3 31.5 1.9 151 54 145 80 31 44 3 34 30

Table 11.

Depth of invasion (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
pT1(M) 3293 9 689 98.8 97.8 96.4 94.9 93.5 0.5 2410 3 7 3 2 4 40 109 26
pT1(SM) 3110 6 550 98.0 95.8 93.5 91.7 89.7 0.6 2268 17 12 17 13 9 51 129 44
pT2(MP) 1341 4 252 95.8 91.5 87.2 84.8 82.1 1.1 869 25 31 27 16 13 17 62 29
pT2(SS) 2115 14 306 87.8 76.0 67.9 62.5 59.1 1.1 996 110 236 128 73 69 29 104 64
pT3(SE) 2567 26 301 72.5 51.0 40.3 33.6 30.3 1.0 614 192 839 153 94 138 14 109 113
pT4(SI) 458 4 52 57.7 34.6 26.3 21.9 20.6 2.0 68 47 154 28 17 42 4 21 25

Table 12.

pT classification (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
pT1 6403 15 1239 98.4 96.9 95.0 93.3 91.7 0.4 4678 20 19 20 15 13 91 238 70
pT2 3456 18 558 90.9 82.0 75.3 71.1 67.9 0.8 1865 135 267 155 89 82 46 166 93
pT3 2567 26 301 72.5 51.0 40.3 33.6 30.3 1.0 614 192 839 153 94 138 14 109 113
pT4 458 4 52 57.7 34.6 26.3 21.9 20.6 2.0 68 47 154 28 17 42 4 21 25

Table 13.

Lymph node metastasis (resected cases)

categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 yearr (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
pN0 7603 20 1482 97.6 95.3 92.9 90.9 88.9 0.4 5350 29 132 52 21 34 107 303 93
pN1 2619 17 374 86.3 73.9 66.6 61.4 58.9 1.0 1240 115 402 124 59 81 28 124 72
pN2 2032 15 246 76.4 56.0 44.5 38.1 34.6 1.1 547 172 542 132 88 114 15 79 97
pN3 522 9 41 54.9 30.1 20.3 16.5 14.3 1.6 61 86 158 36 43 41 3 22 31

Table 14.

Peritoneal cytology (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
CY0 5075 16 761 89.9 80.0 73.2 68.6 65.6 0.7 2675 229 576 200 117 112 60 199 146
CY1 761 16 71 52.2 26.1 18.3 15.0 12.3 1.3 72 45 386 28 36 52 2 33 36

Table 15.

Peritoneal metastasis (P) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year(%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
fP0 12004 47 2082 92.3 85.2 80.3 77.0 74.5 0.4 7087 349 862 308 184 218 154 503 257
fP1 762 15 62 48.9 23.3 13.9 9.9 8.3 1.1 49 48 402 44 28 56 4 31 38

Table 16.

Liver metastasis (H) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
fH0 12441 57 2114 91.0 83.1 78.0 74.6 72.2 0.4 7114 386 1197 229 200 247 156 517 281
fH1 326 6 34 39.8 22.3 15.5 12.7 11.4 1.9 23 10 63 122 12 28 0 17 17

Table 17.

Distant metastasis including peritoneal and liver metastasis (M) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
fM0 12530 56 2128 90.4 82.5 77.5 74.1 71.7 0.4 7104 376 1186 322 185 262 155 518 294
fM1 216 6 15 53.2 29.5 18.1 13.5 12.4 2.4 22 21 73 28 26 15 1 11 4

Table 18.

Japanese stage (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
StageIA 5640 14 1113 98.5 97.1 95.4 93.8 92.2 0.4 4126 11 11 10 4 11 86 215 53
StageIB 1822 5 364 97.2 94.4 90.8 88.1 85.3 0.9 1216 14 41 25 15 12 27 79 29
StageII 1424 3 220 95.0 86.5 80.2 75.5 72.1 1.2 834 50 100 43 30 30 15 69 33
StageIIIA 1178 6 159 88.6 74.0 63.1 56.1 52.8 1.5 501 81 199 55 30 40 14 56 43
StageIIIB 678 4 85 82.1 58.0 43.8 34.9 31.0 1.9 161 61 205 38 31 31 5 32 29
StageIV 1902 30 180 55.6 31.0 21.7 17.4 14.9 0.9 218 180 708 180 101 149 8 80 98

Table 19.

Japanese stage (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
StageI 7462 19 1477 98.2 96.4 94.3 92.4 90.5 0.4 5342 25 52 35 19 23 113 294 82
StageII 1424 3 220 95.0 86.5 80.2 75.5 72.1 1.2 834 50 100 43 30 30 15 69 33
StageIII 1856 10 244 86.2 68.2 56.1 48.4 44.9 1.2 662 142 404 93 61 71 19 88 72
StageIV 1902 30 180 55.6 31.0 21.7 17.4 14.9 0.9 218 180 708 180 101 149 8 80 98

Table 20.

TNM stage (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Stage IA 5564 15 1111 98.2 97.1 95.5 93.9 92.3 0.4 4062 10 9 9 4 11 84 210 54
Stage IB 1950 5 385 97.0 93.8 89.9 87.5 84.7 0.9 1294 17 49 25 15 20 28 84 33
Stage II 1614 5 261 94.0 85.4 78.4 73.3 70.0 1.2 903 62 125 64 35 34 14 80 36
Stage IIIA 1048 9 133 86.1 68.4 58.2 50.6 46.8 1.6 399 75 204 44 33 37 15 55 53
Stage IIIB 477 1 58 79.6 55.6 41.9 32.2 28.8 2.2 107 45 166 19 18 28 4 17 15
Stage IV 1924 27 184 57.3 32.8 22.4 17.9 15.2 0.9 223 180 704 189 107 142 12 83 100

Table 21.

TNM stage (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
StageI 7514 20 1496 98.1 96.2 94.1 92.2 90.3 0.4 5356 27 58 34 19 31 112 294 87
StageII 1614 5 261 94.0 85.4 78.4 73.3 70.0 1.2 903 62 125 64 35 34 14 80 36
StageIII 1525 10 191 84.1 64.4 53.2 44.9 41.2 1.3 506 120 370 63 51 65 19 72 68
StageIV 1924 27 184 57.3 32.8 22.4 17.9 15.2 0.9 223 180 704 189 107 142 12 83 100

Table 22.

Surgical approach (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Laparotomy 12166 59 2021 89.6 81.2 76.0 72.4 69.9 0.4 6745 391 1238 346 204 273 147 514 287
Thoracolaparotomy 152 2 13 70.7 52.0 41.4 38.5 35.4 4.0 45 14 35 6 10 5 3 12 9
Laparoscopic 658 2 136 97.7 96.4 95.0 94.4 93.3 1.0 481 4 6 4 0 0 8 13 6
Others 6 0 2 80.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 21.9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Table 23.

Surgical procedures (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Distal gastrectomy 7743 32 1405 93.1 86.9 82.6 79.9 77.7 0.5 4742 197 515 179 72 124 83 283 143
Total gastrectomy 3966 25 548 81.2 67.5 60.1 54.9 51.9 0.8 1635 207 752 164 138 145 45 194 138
Proximal gastrectomy 523 2 111 94.8 91.3 88.3 86.5 85.1 1.6 341 5 12 9 2 4 7 22 10
Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy 397 1 37 99.5 98.2 95.9 94.8 92.6 1.3 332 1 2 3 1 1 3 14 3
Segmental or local gastrectomy 351 3 67 95.0 91.2 86.2 82.9 81.2 2.2 224 0 2 2 2 4 17 24 9
Surgical mucosal resection 22 0 5 100.0 89.5 78.9 78.9 73.3 10.2 12 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0

Table 24.

Lymph node dissection (D) (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 ysr (%) 2 ysr (%) 3 ysr (%) 4 ysr (%) 5 ysr (%) SE at 5 ysr Alive Local rec. Peri-toneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Un-known
D0 802 12 125 80.5 73.7 69.1 67.0 65.6 1.7 420 17 95 34 10 17 18 49 17
D1 2553 15 457 86.4 79.1 74.6 71.2 68.8 1.0 1356 58 276 65 29 56 48 145 63
D1 + α 1684 7 349 92.0 86.1 83.2 80.9 78.6 1.1 1008 39 94 27 13 31 21 77 25
D1 + β 882 2 165 93.5 88.3 85.6 83.5 81.4 1.4 563 18 45 19 8 9 9 33 13
D2 6056 20 907 91.6 82.2 76.0 72.1 69.6 0.6 3424 240 654 183 126 124 53 201 144
D3 343 2 35 82.8 66.6 58.4 51.1 47.7 2.8 138 28 67 21 17 17 3 6 11

Table 25.

Resection margins (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
PM− and DM− 12217 56 2089 91.0 83.1 78.1 74.7 72.3 0.4 6984 355 1102 332 192 240 155 500 268
PM+ and/or DM+ 397 7 43 50.9 32.2 23.4 18.4 16.2 2.0 50 34 144 18 15 34 2 27 30

Table 26.

Combined resection of neighboring organs (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
No combined resection 7955 33 1494 92.0 85.6 81.4 78.6 76.5 0.5 4729 193 588 161 80 132 98 326 154
Combined resection 4309 29 615 85.1 73.2 66.3 61.5 58.7 0.8 2032 191 651 183 123 135 55 192 132

PM proximal margin, DM distal margin

Table 27.

Combined resected organs (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
Caudal pancreas 313 1 35 74.2 54.5 45.5 39.7 37.5 2.9 96 28 77 15 17 22 3 10 10
Spleen 1444 10 189 84.7 68.8 59.6 53.7 49.7 1.4 573 80 288 61 70 49 15 68 51
Transverse colon 101 1 19 71.6 52.3 43.0 38.0 36.7 5.2 25 5 27 4 2 9 0 7 3
Transverse mesocolon 53 1 7 82.9 61.4 53.2 40.3 38.1 7.0 15 3 15 2 1 4 0 5 1
Diaphragma 9 0 1 50.8 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 1
Liver 96 2 11 63.6 49.2 40.2 34.5 33.2 5.0 24 7 11 17 4 8 2 6 6
Gallbladder 2121 12 339 89.1 81.9 77.3 73.5 71.2 1.0 1215 59 213 73 22 40 28 80 52
Adrenal gland 10 0 0 90.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 12.6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Kidney 7 0 2 85.7 85.7 85.7 68.6 68.6 18.6 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Small intestine 10 0 1 90.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 15.5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1
Abdominal wall 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ovary 22 0 3 67.4 52.1 41.7 41.7 41.7 11.0 7 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0
Pancreas head (PD) 20 2 2 85.0 69.1 58.4 41.8 35.9 11.3 6 2 0 1 0 2 1 5 1
Others 66 0 4 86.4 75.6 67.9 67.9 67.9 5.8 41 1 5 3 2 1 4 2 3

PD pancreatoduodenectomy

Table 28.

Curative potential (resected cases)

Categories No. of patients Direct death Lost f.u. 1 year (%) 2 years (%) 3 years (%) 4 years (%) 5 years (%) SE at 5 years Alive Local rec. Peritoneal Liver rec. Distant meta. R Other cancer Other disease Unknown
A 8102 20 1585 97.8 95.4 92.9 90.6 88.6 0.4 5674 58 119 66 39 39 113 300 109
B 3078 14 398 88.3 72.5 62.1 56.1 52.5 0.9 1318 206 508 137 94 115 39 155 108
C 1505 28 149 49.0 24.7 16.4 12.1 9.9 0.8 109 126 624 150 78 120 3 71 75

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Kaplan–Meier survival for all patients with primary gastric cancer. 5YEARS 5-year survival rate

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Kaplan–Meier survival for resected cases and unresected cases

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by sex

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by age

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by tumor location. W whole stomach

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by macroscopic type

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by histological findings

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by lymphatic invasion

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by depth of tumor invasion

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by pT classification

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by lymph node metastasis

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by peritoneal cytology

Fig. 14.

Fig. 14

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by peritoneal metastasis

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) stage

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by TNM stage

Fig. 18.

Fig. 18

Chronological change of gastric cancer patients older than 80 years. The nationwide registry was suspended for a decade from 1992

The 5YEARS in 13,626 patients with primary gastric cancer was 68.9 % (Table 1; Fig. 2). During the 5-year follow-up, 2,233 patients were lost; the follow-up rate was 83.6 %. Of the 13,626 patients, 13,002 underwent gastric resection. Accordingly, the resection rate was 95.4 %, and the 5YEARS of the resected patients was 70.7 % (Table 2; Fig. 3). Sixty-three of 13,002 resected cases died within 30 days postoperatively. The direct death rate was 0.48 %. The frequent causes of death in patients who had undergone gastrectomy were peritoneal metastasis (n = 1,283), followed by other diseases (n = 539), local recurrence including node metastasis (n = 410), liver metastasis (n = 357), recurrence at unknown site (n = 278), and other cancer (n = 158).

The proportion of male patients was 68.4 % with 5YEARS of 70.0 %; for female patients 5YEARS was 72.3 %, which was better statistically (Table 3; Fig. 4). Patients more than 80 years old were 7.8 % of all patients, and their 5YEARS was 51.4 % (Table 4; Fig. 5). On the other hand, 5YEARS of the patients under 39 years old was 79.4 % (P < 0.001). Cancer was located in the upper-third of the stomach in 21.1 % of the cases, and its 5YEARS was relatively low at 64.3 % (Table 5; Fig. 6). Patients with type 4 cancer amounted to 7.2 %, and their 5YEARS was markedly low at 17.7 % (Table 6; Fig. 7). The 5YEARS of type 3 was 46.0 % and that of type 2 was 60.4 %. For histological type, frequency of the undifferentiated type including poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet-ring cell carcinoma, and mucinous adenocarcinoma was 46.8 % and its 5YEARS was 65.5 %, which was inferior to that of the differentiated type (75.7 %, P < 0.001; Tables 7, 8; Fig. 8). The grade of lymphatic invasion (ly0–ly3) and venous invasion (v0–v3) showed significant correlations with the prognosis (Tables 9, 10; Fig. 9).

A high incidence of early-stage cancer remained characteristic in 2002, as shown in Tables 11 and 12. The proportion of pathological M and SM (pT1) cancer was 49.7 %, and its primary cause of death was not cancer recurrence (17.9 %, n = 87) or other cancer (18.7 %), but other diseases (49.0 %, n = 238). The proportion of pathological MP and SS (pT2) was 26.8 %, SE (pT3) 19.9 %, and SI (pT4) 3.6 %. The 5YEARS of these subsets were 67.9 %, 30.3 %, and 20.6 %, respectively (Figs. 10, 11). The primary cause of death in advanced cancer was cancer recurrence, and the peritoneal recurrence rate was remarkably high in the pT3 and pT4 subsets. For the lymph node metastasis, the proportion of pN0 was 59.5 %, pN1 20.4 %, pN2 15.9 %, and pN3 4.1 %, and the 5YEARS of each subset was 88.9 %, 58.9 %, 34.6 %, and 14.3 %, respectively (Table 13; Fig. 12).

Peritoneal washing cytology was carried out in 5,836 patients with advanced gastric cancer; the positive rate was 13.0 %. The 5YEARS of cytology-positive (CY1) patients was 12.3 %, which was almost as dismal as the 5YEARS of the P1 patients (8.3 %; Tables 14, 15; Figs. 13, 14). The 5YEARS of patients with liver metastasis (H1) was 11.4 %, and of those with other types of distant metastasis was 12.4 % (Tables 16, 17).

The 5YEARS of the patients stratified by JGCA staging system was 92.2 % for stage IA, 85.3 % for stage IB, 72.1 % for stage II, 52.8 % for stage IIIA, 31.0 % for stage IIIB, and 14.9 % for stage IV. These JGCA 5YEARSs seemed to correlate well with TNM 5YEARSs, which were 92.3 % for stage IA, 84.7 % for stage IB, 70.0 % for stage II, 46.8 % for stage IIIA, 28.8 % for stage IIIB, and 15.2 % for stage IV (Table 18, 19, 20, 21; Figs. 15, 16).

For operative procedures, the proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy was only 5.1 % in 2002, and their 5YEARS was 93.3 % (Table 22). Eligibility for laparoscopic surgery was strictly limited at that time, and the laparoscopic approach was selected almost exclusively in patients with the preoperative diagnosis of early gastric cancer. Only 1.2 % of the patients were treated by thoracolaparotomy, and their 5YEARS was 35.4 %. Thoracolaparotomy was usually carried out in patients with advanced gastric cancer with esophageal invasion more than 3 cm in length. Total gastrectomy was performed for 30.5 % of the patients, and their 5YEARS was 51.9 % (Table 23). D2 lymph node dissection, a standard procedure for resectable advanced gastric cancer according to the JGCA treatment guidelines, was performed in 49.2 % of the patients (Table 24) [2, 3]. The risk of direct death among those who underwent D2 gastrectomy was only 0.3 %. The proportion of patients treated with less invasive surgery such as proximal gastrectomy, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy, segmental gastrectomy, and local resection of the stomach was 9.8 %. D0, D1, D1 + α, and D1 + β dissection were carried out in 6.5 %, 20.7 %, 13.7 %, and 7.2 % of the patients, respectively. D0 and D1 dissection were carried out mainly in patients with noncurative factors or poor surgical risks. The incidence of positive resection margin (PM+ and/or DM+) was 3.1 % (Table 25). Combined resection of other organs was performed in 35.1 % (Table 26). The frequent combined resected organs in patients who underwent gastrectomy were gallbladder (n = 2121), spleen (n = 1444), caudal pancreas (n = 313), transverse colon (n = 101), liver (n = 96), and so on in descending order (Table 27).

The curative potential of gastric resection was an important prognostic factor. The proportion of patients with no residual tumors with high probability of cure (resection A) was 63.9 %, and their 5YEARS was 88.6 %. On the other hand, patients with definite residual tumors (resection C) amounted to 11.9 % of all patients who underwent laparotomy, and their 5YEARS was 9.9 % (Table 28; Fig. 17).

Fig. 17.

Fig. 17

Kaplan–Meier survival of resected cases stratified by curative potential of gastric resection

Discussion

Estimates of the worldwide incidence, mortality, and prevalence of 26 cancers in the year 2002 were available in the GLOBOCAN series of the International Agency for Research on Cancer [4]. With an estimated 934,000 new cases per year in 2002 (8.6 % of new cancer cases), the incidence of stomach cancer is in fourth place, after cancers of the lung, breast, and colon and rectum. It is the second most common cause of death from cancer (700,000 deaths annually).

The data presented in this report were collected from 208 hospitals in Japan. Cancer incidence rate (annual number of newly diagnosed cases per 100,000 population) in Japan in 2002 was approximately 520 for males and 370 for females. The incidences of various cancers in Japan are estimated from data collected by the cancer registry system in a dozen prefectures. According to these statistics, the number of cancer incidences in 2002 was approximately 589,000. The stomach was the leading site (21 %) for males and the second highest site (14 %) for females. The number of new patients who were diagnosed as gastric cancer in 2002 was estimated to be 106,760 [5]. Accordingly, 13,626 patients registered by this program corresponded to approximately 13 % of the whole population affected by gastric cancer in Japan. Even though these patients may not represent the average features of gastric cancer found in this country, this report is considered to have analyzed the largest number of patients for the past 10 years, clarifying the trends of gastric cancer in Japan. Just for reference, the proportion of patients registered in the nationwide registry of other organs of all patients diagnosed were 6 % in colon cancer, 24 % in esophageal cancer, 25 % in liver cancer, and 26 % in lung cancer, respectively [6].

The reliability of the results in this report depends on the quality of data accumulated in the JGCA database. Because of the complexity of the JGCA staging system, the error checking system on the data entry screen did not function completely. In several categories such as lymph node metastasis (N), the JGCA system could not be converted to the TNM system automatically. Therefore, the registration committee had to make great efforts to confirm raw data sent to the data center from the participating hospitals.

As compared with our archived data of 12,004 patients treated in 2001 [1], the proportion of early cancer declined from 51.2 % to 49.7 % [pT1 (M) cancer, 27.4 % to 25.6 %, and pT1 (SM) cancer, 23.8 % to 24.1 %], suggesting that an increasing number of patients with mucosal cancer were sent for endoscopic treatment. These data suggest that we should start to register gastric patients treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as soon as possible. The surgical mortality within 30 days significantly improved, from 0.6 % to 0.48 % (P < 0.001). Just for reference, it was 4.0 % in 1963 and 1.0 % in 1991 [7], Moreover, the nationwide database of gastrointestinal surgery in 2008 showed that was 0.2 % in gastrectomy and 0.4 % in total gastrectomy [8].

Accordingly with the rapidly aging society in Japan, the proportion of patients more than 80 years old continued increasing (Fig. 18): it was 0.7 % in 1963, 4.9 % in 1990, 7.0 % in 2001, and 7.8 % in 2002, respectively. Although the risk for surgery increases in elderly patients who have comorbidities, evaluations of risk can allow interventions that may decrease morbidity and mortality. Appropriate treatments should be offered to the elderly. However, these data have the intrinsic weakness of being retrospectively collected 7 years after surgery. Unfortunately, we in Japan continue to have a legal difficulty in registering personal information, which is essential for long-term and prospective follow-up. The overall follow-up rate in our program was 83.5 %. In other words, the outcome of 17.5 % of the patients is unknown. The proportion of patients who were lost to follow-up in the Japanese nationwide registry of colon cancer, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer was 19.6 %, 25.8 %, and 20.6 %, respectively [6]. Rules and regulations regarding handling of these data will have to change radically to overcome the issue of accuracy and reliability of the nationwide registry in Japan, and this could be out of the hands of the surgeons who have contributed to the best of their abilities to gather these data. On the other hand, the Japanese Association of Clinical Cancer Centers, consisting of 25 cancer center hospitals, reported that their follow-up rate was 98.5 %, and 5YEARS of 9,980 patients who underwent surgery from 1997 to 2000 were 90.4 % for TNM stage I, 67.8 % for stage II, 43.3 % for stage III, and 9.3 % for stage IV, respectively [9]. When the patients with gastric cancer had a medical examination in clinical cancer centers, they registered the place where their family records were registered, and office workers of the clinical cancer centers confirmed regularly their safety from the family registration; this was the reason for the extremely high follow-up rate. In the current analyses, 5YEARS in stage IV patients was 15.2 %. We might have overestimated our 5YEARS in stage IV patients, but we found that our follow-up rate increased as the stage advanced; the follow-up rate of stage IV patients was 90.4 %. These data suggest that the lower follow-up rate may not have had serious effects on 5YEARSs in our program. Although, the correlation between follow-up rate and survival rate is complicated, our follow-up system needs to be improved if we are to evaluate the survival rates more accurately.

Cytological examination was conducted in 3,481 (59.4 %) of 5,857 patients with T2, T3, or T4 cancer. The 5YEARS of CY1 patients was 12.3 % and their 5YEARS was as poor as that of patients with peritoneal metastasis. Although this examination was not carried out commonly in the days of 2002, it could still be regarded as a significant and independent prognostic factor from the data that were available. These findings further support the need for staging laparoscopy for accurate preoperative staging in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

JGCA restarted a nationwide registration from 2008. The object of the new nationwide registry was primarily to calculate the stage-specific 5YEARSs among patients who underwent gastrectomy. Therefore, the structure of the database was required to be simple, and the number of registration items was kept to a minimum. Undoubtedly, the next objective would be to collect and analyze data of patients with inoperable disease, remnant gastric cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, malignant lymphoma of the stomach, and other entities that were excluded in the current project. We also began to register patients who were treated by EMR/ESD by adding additional items and updating data entry software from 2011.

We hope that this report will be useful when surveying trends and changes in the clinical practice and treatment results of gastric cancer in Japan. Details of the individual data presented in this report will soon become available for scientific and clinical research with the permission of the registration committee. In addition, most of the surgical and pathological data could easily be transferred to the international database in the near future for various analyses. The registration committee will continue the efforts to improve the registration system, ultimately to collect meaningful annual data.

Acknowledgments

The JGCA Registration Committee appreciates the great effort of participating hospitals in registering accurate and detailed data for this project. I wish to express my great gratitude to Ms. Yoshimi Sugamura, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, for her valuable assistance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to the contents of this manuscript.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Appendix: Participating hospitals

Data of gastric cancer patients in this report were collected from the surgical or gastrointestinal departments of the following 208 hospitals (in alphabetical order): Akashi Municipal Hospital, Aomori City Hospital, Asahikawa Medical University Hospital, Cancer Institute Hospital, Chiba Cancer Center, Chiba University Hospital, Dokkyo Medical University Hospital, Ebina General Hospital, Fuchu Hospital, Fujita Health University (Banbuntane Houtokukai Hospital), Fukaya Red Cross Hospital, Fukui Red Cross Hospital, Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Gifu Prefectural General Medical Center, Gifu University Hospital, Gunma Prefectural Cancer Center, Gunma University Hospital, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, University Hospital, Handa City Hospital, Health Insurance Hitoyoshi General Hospital, Higashiosaka City General Hospital, Himeji Central Hospital, Hiroshima City Asa Hospital, Hiroshima City Hospital, Hiroshima Prefectural Hospital, Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital and Atomic-bomb Survivors Hospital, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hitachi General Hospital, Hokkaido University Hospital, Hoshigaoka Koseinenkin Hospital, Hospital, University of the Ryukyus, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo Prefectural Nishinomiya Hospital, Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital, Ibaraki Seinan Medical Center Hospital, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Iwate Medical University Hospital, Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, Iwate Prefectural Kamaishi Hospital, Izumi Municipal Hospital, JA Hiroshima Kouseiren Hiroshima General Hospital, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Jikei University School of Medicine, Jikei University Aoto Hospital, Juntendo University Juntendo Hospital, Jusendo Medical Hospital, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kagawa Medical University Hospital, Kakogawa Municipal Hospital, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Kansai Electric Power Hospital, Kansai Rousai Hospital, Kawasaki Medical School Hospital, Keio University Hospital, Keiyukai Sapporo Hospital, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kinki Central Hospital, Kinki University Hospital, Kiryu Kosei General Hospital, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, Kobe Century Memorial Hospital, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kouchi Medical School Hospital, Kumamoto Medical Center, Kumamoto Regional Medical Center, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurobe Kyosai Hospital, Kuroishi General Hospital, Kurume University Hospital, Kushiro Rosai Hospital, Kyorin University Hospital, Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyushu University Hospital, Matsushita Memorial Hospital, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Misawa City Hospital, Mitoyo General Hospital, Miyagi Cancer Center, Mizushima Kyodo Hospital, Muroran City General Hospital, Musashino Red Cross Hospital, Nagahama City Hospital, Nagano Municipal Hospital, Nagano Red Cross Hospital, Nagaoka Chuo General Hospital, Nagasaki Municipal Hospital, Nagoya University Hospital, Nakagami Hospital, Nanpuh Hospital, Nara Medical University Hospital, Nara Hospital, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, National Cancer Center Hospital, National Defense Medical College Hospital, NHO Ciba Medical Center, NHO Kasumigaura Medical Center, NHO Kyushu Cancer Center, NHO Osaka Medical Center, NHO Sendai Medical Center, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, NHO Tokyo Medical Center, NHO Yokohama Medical Center, Nihon University Itabashi Hospital, Nihon University Surugadai Hospital, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata City General Hospital, Niigata Prefectural Shibata Hospital, Niigata Prefectural Yoshida Hospital, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Nippon Koukan Hospital, Nippon Medical School Chiba Hokusoh Hospital, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Nishi-kobe Medical Center, NTT West Osaka Hospital, Obihiro Tokushukai Hospital, Oita Red Cross Hospital, Oita University Hospital, Okayama University Hospital, Okitama Public General Hospital, Onomichi Municipal Hospital, Osaka City University Hospital, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka Kouseinenkin Hospital, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka Medical College Hospital, Osaka Police Hospital, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, Osaka Seamen’s Insurance Hospital, Osaka University Hospital, Otsu Municipal Hospital, Otsu Red Cross Hospital, Rinku General Medical Hospital, Sado General Hospital, Saga University Hospital, Saiseikai Chuwa Hospital, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital, Saiseikai Niigata Daini Hospital, Saiseikai Noe Hospital, Saiseikai Utsunomiya Hospital, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical Center Jichi Medical University, Saitama Red Cross Hospital, Saitama Social Insurance Hospital, Saku Central Hospital, Sapporo City General Hospital, Sapporo Medical Center, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, Sapporo Social Insurance General Hospital, Sayama Hospital, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Shakaihoken Kobe Central Hospital, Shiga University of Medical Science Hospital, Shimonoseki City Central Hospital, Shinnittetsu Yahata Memorial Hospital, Shinshu University Hospital, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Showa Inan Hospital, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Showa University Toyosu Hospital, Social Insurance Central General Hospital, Social Insurance Kinan Hospital, Southern Tohoku General Hospital, St. Luke’s International Hospital, St. Marianna University School of Medicine Yokohama City West Hospital, Suita Municipal Hospital, Sumitomo Hospital, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Takeda General Hospital, Tochigi Cancer Center, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tohoku University Hospital, Tokushima Municipal Hospital, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokyo Medical University Ibaraki Medical Center, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo Women’s Medical University (Institute of Gastroenterology), Tokyo Women’s Medical University Hospital, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Medical Center East, Tonami General Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Tottori Municipal Hospital, Toyama Prefectural Central Hospital, Toyama University Hospital, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Tsukuba University Hospital, University Hospital Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, University of Fukui Hospital, University of Miyazaki Hospital, University of Yamanashi Hospital, Wakayama Medical University Hospital, Yamachika Memorial General Hospital, Yamagata Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamagata University Hospital, Yamaguchi Rousai Hospital, Yamanashi Prefectural Central Hospital, Yao Municipal Hospital, Yodogawa Christian Hospital, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama City University Medical Center, and Yuri Kumiai General Hospital.

Footnotes

All the authors are members of the Registration Committee of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.

References

  • 1.Isobe Y, Nashimoto A, Akazawa K, Oda I, Hayashi K, Miyashiro I, et al. Gastric cancer treated in Japan: 2008 annual report of the JGCA nationwide registry. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:301–316. doi: 10.1007/s10120-011-0085-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association . Gastric cancer treatment guidelines for doctor’s reference (in Japanese). Kanehara: Tokyo; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Introduction to JGCA gastric cancer treatment guidelines. www.jgca.jp/PDFfiles/E-guideline.PDF.
  • 4.Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2002: cancer incidence and mortality and prevalence worldwide. IARC Cancer Base No. 5, version 2.0. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
  • 5.Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue T, et al. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2002 based on data from 11 population-based cancer registries. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:641–648. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyn074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Higashi T, Sobue T, Nishimoto H. The current status of site-specific cancer registries in Japan. Surg Ther 2011;104(2):169–176 (in Japanese).
  • 7.Maruyama K, Kaminishi M, Hayashi K, Isobe Y, Honda I, Katai H, et al. Gastric cancer treated in 1991 in Japan: data analysis of nationwide registry. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9:21–66. doi: 10.1007/s10120-006-0370-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Goto M, Kitagawa Y, Kimura O, Shimada M, Tomita N, et al. 2008 annual investigational report of the JSGS Database Committee. http://www.jsgs.or.jp/modules/oshirase/index.php?content_id=164.
  • 9.Survival rate in the member hospitals of the association of clinical cancer centers (diagnosed in 1997–2000). In: Kato H, Sobue T, Katanoda K, Saito Y, Tukuma H, Saruki N, et al., editors. Cancer statistics in Japan: 2008. Tokyo: Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research; 2009.

Articles from Gastric Cancer are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES