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.
Introduction
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. If gastric cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage or leads to distal metastasis, the chances of cure are reduced dramatically [2]. Thus, detection at an early stage followed by fast and non-invasive resection is the most important factor contributing to complete remission of gastric cancer. Over the last decade, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been established as a standard therapeutic option for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) without lymph node metastasis and lymphatic or vascular invasion [3]. Differentiated mucosal cancer without ulcerative findings and tumor size ≤20 mm are an absolute indication for ESD [4]. However, fewer than expected short-term outcomes of ESD including en bloc and curative resection for undifferentiated mucosal cancer and differentiated SM invasion cancer have been reported [5, 6]. Histopathological evaluation of resected specimen may reveal that EGC with minor SM invasion ≤500 μm may accompany lymphovascular invasion [7]. Thus, it is an important issue to select minute SM invasive EGC before procedure and carefully consider the options of ESD or surgery.
However, few diagnostic tools are available for the effective detection of SM invasive cancer. Pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) may be used to investigate SM invasion. However, EUS is a tedious procedure, with poor image and inter-observer variation for the staging of EGC, compared with conventional white-light endoscopy (WLE) [8]. A well-trained endoscopist may predict submucosal invasion based on several suggestive findings of WLE such as irregular surface, marginal elevation and clubbing, fusion or cutting of converging folds, despite disappointing diagnostic accuracy (72–81%) [9–11]. Combining the findings of WLE and EUS or other associated factors may strengthen the predictive value of of EGC for the depth of invasion. Proximal gastric cancer exhibits different biological or clinicopathological behavior compared with distal gastric cancer [12]. However, data about the unique characteristics of proximal EGC are very limited. Therefore, we investigated the unique characteristics of proximal EGC compared with the antral EGC by focusing on the depth of invasion and other clinicopathological parameters.
Methods
Study population
From March 2007 to March 2016, patients who were diagnosed with EGC and underwent surgical or endoscopic resection at our institution were subdivided according to the location. Proximal EGC was defined by tumor location in the upper third of stomach and distal EGC by the lower third of stomach, according to the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma 3rd edition [13]. We excluded EGC involving esophagogastric junction (EGJ) to minimize the component of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Cases corresponding to proximal EGCs were collected. We calculated propensity score by logistic regression with respect to age and sex, and matched proximal and distal cases as 1: 3 ratio manually. We retrospectively analyzed clinical information including age, gender, family history, comorbidities, and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Korea University Guro Hospital review board (IRB no. K2018-0919-001), and this study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a prior approval by the Korea University Guro Hospital's human research committee. Written, informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study.
Histopathology
ESD and surgery were performed by two experienced endoscopists (PJJ, JMK) and surgeons (MYJ, JYJ), respectively. Written, informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study. Gross type of EGCs were reviewed based on endoscopic images and defined by Paris classification [14]. ESD was performed if the lesion was estimated as within Gotoda’s expanded criteria; 1) differentiated type mucosal cancer, regardless of tumor size, 2) differentiated type with ulceration, tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm, 3) differentiated type with SM invasion ≤ 500 μm, tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm and 4) undifferentiated type mucosal cancer, tumor size ≤ 2.0 cm [15]. The presence of ulcer, tumor size, depth of invasion and lymphovascular invasion were determined by pathological evaluation of the resected specimen, which was fixed in 10% formalin and sectioned into 4-mm thick segments. Tumor differentiation was classified as differentiated or undifferentiated type according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines (Version 4) [16]. The status of H. pylori infection was identified by special Wright-Giemsa stain. R0 resection was defined as a microscopically margin-negative resection, without gross or microscopic tumor remaining in the primary tumor bed [17]. Recurrence was defined as synchronous or metachronous cancer in the stomach detected by follow-up surveillance endoscopy.
Statistical analysis
We performed statistical analysis using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Comparison of clinicopathological parameters between proximal and distal EGC was performed by Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Student’s t test for continuous data. Multivariate analysis was performed using a stepwise multiple logistic regression model including statistically significant variables in univariate analysis. A P value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results
Baseline characteristics and clinicohistopathological outcomes
During the study period, a total of 1146 patients underwent endoscopic resection or surgery and diagnosed as EGC (endoscopy; 689, surgery 457). Among them, 600 cases were located on distal stomach (endoscopy; 414, surgery 186) and 119 on proximal stomach (endoscopy; 63, surgery; 56). We matched age and sex as 1:3 ratio, and finally enrolled 368 EGC patients including 92 patients assigned to the proximal group and 276 patients to the distal group. Baseline characteristics of the entire study population are summarized in Table 1. Age and sex were identical in both groups, and patients with a family history of gastric cancer, comorbidities except hypertension (, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, liver cirrhosis and chronic kidney disease), body mass index (BMI), past history of gastric cancer and H. pylori infection were not significantly different between the two groups. Procedure time was significantly prolonged in proximal group than distal group among the cases resected by ESD (58.2 ± 29.0 vs. 40.0 ± 31.7, P = 0.001), but not significantly different between both groups in patients with surgical resection. Among patients who underwent ESD, major bleeding in proximal and distal group was 5% (2/40) vs. 15% (33/220), and perforation was 5% (2/40) vs. 2.7% (6/220), which was not significantly different (P = 0.106). Among patients with surgical resection, major bleeding occurred only in proximal group (3.8%, 2/52), but not in distal group, despite no statistical significance (P = 0.139).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of overall patients.
| Variables | Proximal (n = 92) |
Distal (n = 276) |
Total (n = 368) |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year ± SD) | 62.7 ± 11.1 | 62.6 ± 9.2 | 62.6 ± 9.7 | 0.939 |
| Sex (male), n (%) | 68 (73.9) | 204 (73.9) | 272 (73.9) | 1.000 |
| Family history of gastric cancer, n (%) | 2 (2.2) | 9 (3.3) | 11 (3.0) | 0.596 |
| Comorbidity, n (%) | ||||
| Hypertension | 41 (44.6) | 86 (31.2) | 127 (34.5) | 0.019 |
| Diabetes | 18 (19.6) | 52 (19.6) | 70 (19.0) | 0.878 |
| Cardiovascular disease | 6 (6.5) | 15 (5.4) | 21 (5.7) | 0.697 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 4 (4.3) | 9 (3.3) | 13 (3.5) | 0.625 |
| Liver cirrhosis | 1 (1.1) | 6 (2.2) | 7 (1.9) | 0.509 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 2 (2.2) | 2 (0.7) | 4 (1.1) | 0.246 |
| Past history of gastric cancer, n (%) | 4 (4.3) | 8 (2.9) | 12 (3.3) | 0.498 |
| Helicobacter pylori infection, n (%)* | 32 (58.2) | 136 (60.7) | 168 (60.2) | 0.731 |
*Evaluation of Helicobacter pylori was performed 55 patients in proximal group and 224 patients in distal group
SD, standard deviation
In terms of histopathological outcomes, however, proximal EGCs were performed more frequently by surgery (52/92; 56.5% vs. 56/276; 20.3%, P<0.001), comprised more flat or depressed type (62/92; 67.4% vs. 136/276; 49.3%, P = 0.008), undifferentiated (35/92; 38.0% vs. 54/276; 19.6%, P<0.001), and diffuse types (23/92; 25.0% vs. 43/276; 15.6%, P = 0.041). The mean tumor size was 29.5 ± 19.4 mm in the proximal group, which was significantly larger than 20.3 ± 16.8 mm in the distal group (P<0.001), and EGCs larger than 30 mm were more frequently noted in the proximal group than in the distal group (41/92; 44.6% vs. 48/276; 17.4%, P<0.001). Furthermore, SM invasion was more frequently detected in the proximal group than in the distal group (56/92; 60.9% vs. 71/276; 25.7%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in lymphovascular invasion between both groups. Among 260 patients who underwent endoscopic procedure, absolute, expanded and beyond expanded criteria judged by histopathologic evaluation were 30% (12/40), 35% (14/40) and 35% (14/40), respectively, in proximal group, and 63.2% (139/220), 20.9% (46/220) and 15.9% (35/220), respectively, in distal group. The distribution of ESD criteria in both groups were significantly different (P<0.001). 63 patients (24.2%) showed non-curative resection due to positive margin, presence of lymphovascular invasion or beyond expanded criteria of ESD by histopathologic evaluation. Among them, 7 patients had additional surgery, 3 had re-do ESD and 53 did not undergo additional procedure and were endoscopically followed-up. During the mean follow-up of 39.8 ± 24.1 months, the recurrence rate among patients who underwent ESD was 2.5% (1/40) in proximal group and 9.5% (21/220) in distal group. There was no recurrent case among patients who underwent surgical resection. After exclusion of 5 cases of synchronous cancers in distal group, two cases were local recurrence at ESD site and 15 cases were metachtonous cancers, thus recurrence rate was modified as 2.5% vs. 7.3%, which was not significantly different (P = 0.261). (Table 2). When we stratified the recurrence rate in cases with curative resection, neither was significantly different between proximal and distal group (1/20, 5.0% vs. 14/173, 8.1%, P = 0.625). In terms of nodal stage among patients who underwent surgery, N0, N1, N2 and N3 were 92.3% (48/52), 7.7% (4/52), 0% (0/52) and 0% (0/52), respectively, in proximal group, and 87.5% (49/56), 8.9% (5/56), 1.8% (1/56) and 1.8% (1/56), respectively, in distal group. The distribution of N stage in both groups were not significantly different (P = 0.577).
Table 2. Clinicopathologic outcomes between proximal and distal group.
| Variables | Proximal (n = 92) |
Distal (n = 276) |
Total (n = 368) |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure type (ESD:surgery), n (%) | 40:52 (43.5:56.5) | 220:56 (79.7:20.3) | 260:108 (70.7:29.3) | <0.001 |
| Gross type, n (%) | 0.008 | |||
| Elevated | 30 (32.6) | 140 (50.7) | 170 (46.2) | |
| Flat or depressed | 62 (67.4) | 136 (49.3) | 198 (53.8) | |
| Ulcer, n (%) | 9 (9.8) | 50 (18.1) | 59 (16.0) | 0.059 |
| En bloc resection, n (%) | 91 (98.9) | 275 (99.6) | 366 (99.5) | 0.189 |
| R0 resection, n (%) | 85 (92.4) | 255 (92.4) | 340 (92.4) | 1.000 |
| Histopathologic differentiation, n (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Differentiated type | 57 (62.0) | 222 (80.4) | 279 (75.8) | |
| Undifferentiated type | 35 (38.0) | 54 (19.6) | 89 (24.2) | |
| Lauren classification, n (%) | 0.041 | |||
| Intestinal | 69 (75.0) | 233 (84.4) | 302 (82.1) | |
| Diffuse | 23 (25.0) | 43 (15.6) | 66 (17.9) | |
| Size (mm ± SD) | 29.5 ± 19.4 | 20.3 ± 16.8 | 22.6 ± 17.9 | <0.001 |
| Size subcategory | <0.001 | |||
| <20 | 32 (34.8) | 172 (62.3) | 204 (55.4) | |
| 20≤ <30 | 19 (20.7) | 56 (20.3) | 75 (20.4) | |
| ≥30 | 41 (44.6) | 48 (17.4) | 89 (24.2) | |
| Depth of invasion, n (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Mucosa | 36 (39.1) | 205 (74.3) | 241 (65.5) | |
| Submucosa | 56 (60.9) | 71 (25.7) | 127 (34.5) | |
| Depth of mucosa cancer, n (%) | 0.542 | |||
| Lamina propria | 22 (61.1) | 136 (66.3) | 158 (65.6) | |
| Muscularis mucosa | 14 (38.9) | 69 (33.7) | 83 (34.4) | |
| Depth of submucosa cancer, n (%)* | 0.279 | |||
| SM1 | 20 (39.2) | 21 (30.4) | 41 (34.2) | |
| SM2 | 8 (15.7) | 19 (27.5) | 27 (22.5) | |
| SM3 | 23 (45.1) | 29 (42.0) | 52 (43.3) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | 3 (3.3) | 13 (4.7) | 16 (4.4) | 0.567 |
| Follow-up duration (month ± SD) | 39.1 ± 22.7 | 40.0 ± 24.7 | 39.8 ± 24.1 | 0.766 |
| Recurrence, n (%)** | 1 (2.5) | 16 (7.3) | 17 (6.5) | 0.261 |
*Subdivision of submucosal invasion was not performed in 5 patients among proximal group and 2 patients in distal group
**Recurrence among patients who underwent ESD. Synchronous cancers were excluded.
SD, standard deviation, ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection
Risk factors for SM invasion
We evaluated the significant risk factors of SM invasion among the entire study population. Univariate analysis showed that proximal location, flat or depressed appearance, undifferentiated type, tumor size, diffuse type and lymphovascular invasion were significant risk factors for SM invasion. Multivariate analysis revealed that proximal location (odds ratio (OR), 3.541; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.053–6.110; P<0.001), tumor size (20≤ <30: OR, 2.196; 95% CI, 1.190–4.054; P = 0.012); (≥30: OR, 3.388; 95% CI, 1.844–6.225; P<0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 4.885; 95% CI, 1.5216–15.745; P<0.001) were significant risk factors (Table 3).
Table 3. Risk Factors for submucosa invasive early gastric cancer among overall patients.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | P-value | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P-value | Odds ratio | 95% CI | ||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| Proximal location | <0.001 | 4.491 | 2.729 | 7.391 | <0.001 | 3.541 | 2.053 | 6.110 |
| Flat or Depressed | 0.013 | 1.841 | 1.137 | 2.980 | 0.195 | 1.446 | 0.828 | 2.526 |
| Ulcer | 0.684 | 0.884 | 0.488 | 1.601 | 0.832 | 1.075 | 0.550 | 2.099 |
| Undifferentiated type | <0.001 | 2.457 | 1.507 | 4.006 | 0.367 | 1.507 | 0.619 | 3.672 |
| Size* | ||||||||
| 20≤ <30 | <0.001 | 2.870 | 1.624 | 5.074 | 0.012 | 2.196 | 1.190 | 4.054 |
| ≥30 | <0.001 | 5.679 | 3.301 | 9.769 | <0.001 | 3.388 | 1.844 | 6.225 |
| Diffuse type | 0.004 | 2.213 | 1.289 | 3.799 | 0.930 | 0.957 | 0.358 | 2.559 |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.006 | 4.515 | 1.533 | 13.299 | <0.001 | 4.885 | 1.516 | 15.745 |
*Compared with size <20mm
CI, confidence interval
Subgroup analysis of clinicohistopathological parameters: Size < 30mm
Tumor size varied significantly between the proximal and distal groups among the entire study population. To minimize the effect of tumor size on the invasiveness of EGC, we performed subgroup analysis by selecting EGCs less than 30 mm, including 51 patients from the proximal and 228 patients from the distal groups. Clinicohistopathological variables are listed in Table 4. Age, gender, BMI and tumor size were not significantly different in both groups. However, Procedure time was significantly prolonged among the cases resected by ESD (58.9 ± 28.2 vs. 37.1 ± 30.1, P<0.001), surgery was frequently performed (15/51; 29.4% vs. 28/228; 12.6%, P = 0.002), and flat or depressed type was significantly found (15/51; 29.4% vs. 28/228; 12.6%, P = 0.002) in the proximal group than in the distal group. In terms of histopathological parameters, undifferentiated type (16/51; 31.4% vs. 32/228; 14.0%, P = 0.003) and SM invasion (29/51; 56.9% vs. 45/228; 19.7%, P<0.001) were more frequent in the proximal group, which was consistent with the outcomes from the entire study population. Recurrence rate among patients who underwent ESD and tumor size < 30 mm were 2.8% (1/36) in proximal group and 8.0% (16/200) in distal group, which was not significantly different (P = 0.265).
Table 4. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes in subgroup: Tumor size < 30 mm.
| Variables | Proximal (n = 51) |
Distal (n = 228) |
Total (n = 279) |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male), n (%) | 41 (80.4) | 173 (75.9) | 214 (76.7) | 0.490 |
| Age (year ± SD) | 63.1 ± 10.1 | 62.4 ± 9.0 | 62.8 ± 9.5 | 0.642 |
| Helicobacter pylori infection, n (%)* | 20 (50.0) | 119 (63.6) | 139 (61.2) | 0.108 |
| Procedure type (ESD:surgery), n (%) | 36:15 (70.9:29.4) | 200:28 (87.7:12.3) | 236:43 (84.6:15.4) | 0.002 |
| Gross type, n (%) | 0.035 | |||
| Elevated | 19 (37.3) | 121 (53.1) | 140 (50.2) | |
| Flat or depressed | 32 (62.7) | 107 (46.9) | 139 (49.8) | |
| Ulcer, n (%) | 6 (11.8) | 42 (18.4) | 48 (17.2) | 0.255 |
| En bloc resection, n (%) | 51 (100.0) | 227 (99.6) | 278 (99.6) | 0.636 |
| R0 resection, n (%) | 44 (86.3) | 215 (94.3) | 259 (92.8) | 0.045 |
| Histopathologic differentiation, n (%) | 0.003 | |||
| Differentiated type | 35 (68.6) | 196 (86.0) | 231 (82.8) | |
| Undifferentiated type | 16 (31.4) | 32 (14.0) | 48 (17.2) | |
| Lauren classification, n (%) | 0.224 | |||
| Intestinal | 42 (82.4) | 202 (88.6) | 244 (87.5) | |
| Diffuse | 9 (17.6) | 22 (11.4) | 35 (12.5) | |
| Size (mm ± SD) | 15.9 ± 6.4 | 14.3 ± 6.9 | 14.9 ± 6.7 | 0.100 |
| Depth of invasion, n (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Mucosa | 22 (43.1) | 183 (80.3) | 205 (73.5) | |
| Submucosa | 29 (56.9) | 45 (19.7) | 74 (26.5) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (4.4) | 10 (3.6) | 0.128 |
| Recurrence, n (%) | 1 (2.8) | 16 (8.0) | 17 (7.2) | 0.265 |
*Evaluation of Helicobacter pylori was performed 40 patients in proximal group and 187 patients in distal group
SD, standard deviation, ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection
Risk factors of SM invasion among subgroups: Size < 30mm
We also performed univariate and multivariate analyses to detect the risk factors for SM invasion among subgroups with size < 30 mm using a multiple logistic regression analysis model. Proximal tumor location (OR, 5.940; 95% CI, 2.974–11.862; P<0.001), flat or depressed appearance (OR, 2.184; 95% CI, 1.089–4.379; P = 0.028) and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 8.487; 95% CI, 2.224–32.979; P = 0.002) were significant risk factors for SM invasion among subgroups (Table 5).
Table 5. Risk factors for submucosa invasive early gastric cancer in subgroup: Tumor Size < 30 mm.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | P-value | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P-value | Odds ratio | 95% CI | ||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| Proximal location | <0.001 | 5.361 | 2.818 | 10.197 | <0.001 | 5.940 | 2.974 | 11.862 |
| Flat or depressed | 0.037 | 1.921 | 1.041 | 3.544 | 0.028 | 2.184 | 1.089 | 4.379 |
| Ulcer | 0.793 | 0.909 | 0.444 | 1.858 | 0.720 | 0.862 | 0.383 | 1.938 |
| Undifferentiated type | 0.001 | 2.913 | 1.526 | 5.559 | 0.279 | 1.930 | 0.588 | 6.337 |
| Diffuse type | 0.007 | 2.701 | 1.305 | 5.589 | 0.706 | 1.295 | 0.337 | 4.976 |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.024 | 4.434 | 1.215 | 16.183 | 0.002 | 8.487 | 2.224 | 32.979 |
CI, confidence interval
Discussion
In this study, we demonstrated that proximal EGCs were significantly larger, showed undifferentiated and diffuse type, and invaded SM more frequently compared with distal EGCs in an age and sex-matched cohort. Furthermore, the proximal location of EGC was a significant risk factor of SM invasion in the overall population as well as subgroups with tumor size < 30 mm. Based on our results, we recommend careful pre-procedural evaluation and consideration of optimal procedure in case of proximal EGCs. Previous studies investigated different clinicopathological characteristics of proximal gastric cancers by comparing distal or non-proximal gastric cancers, however, most of the cases included in these studies were advanced gastric cancers (AGCs) corresponding to T2~4 stage [18–22], and many confounding variables were not well adjusted. The strength of our study relates to inclusion of EGCs confined to mucosa or submucosa layer, in other words, T1 cancer. Furthermore, we reduced confounding risk factors such as age and male sex by pre-analysis matching. Many Western and Eastern studies demonstrated that proximal gastric cancer is significantly frequent in advanced age and male patients compared with distal gastric cancer [23–29]. Thus, we matched proximal EGC cases with distal EGCs by age and sex to minimize the confounding effects of baseline characteristics. After adjustment, however, several significant histopathological features were still observed in patients with proximal EGCs, which suggest the unique biological behavior of proximal EGCs. SM invasion is a critical concern for endoscopic treatment of EGCs, because SM invasion is one of the most common causes of failure of curative resection of ESD (defined by both en bloc and complete resection without lymphovascular invasion and meeting the expanded criteria of ESD), which significantly leads to tumor recurrence during long-term follow-up [30]. Pre-ESD evaluation may provide predictive information for SM invasion of EGC, including endoscopic (subepithelial tumor-like marginal elevation, fusion of convergent folds, irregular nodularity or submucosal fibrosis) [31] or EUS findings (blurring, obliteration or infiltration or SM layer) [32]. However, diagnostic accuracy of these procedures is highly dependent on the endoscopist, and inter-observer variation is an important challenge. An image enhanced endoscopy such as magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) is attracting attention as a new alternative diagnostic tool that predict SM invasion of EGCs. A recent study showed that the presence of dilated vessel detected by ME-NBI predicted SM invasion with 81.5% of diagnostic accuracy and 88.3% of specificity [33]. The reason for predominant SM invasion of proximal EGC is rarely known. The thickness of stomach wall varies according to the location, and is thicker in the antrum compared with body and cardia. Subsequently, the SM layer is thinner in the proximal location than in the distal location [34]. Furthermore, thickness of mucosal layer is often thicker in antrum than proximal body or cardia [35], which may contribute to the predominance of mucosal cancer in distal group than proximal group. A recent Chinese data showed that gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma is significantly found in proximal than distal EGCs, which may link to greater tendency toward SM invasion [36]. Other molecular mechanisms may be involved in the invasiveness of proximal EGCs, which need to be further investigated.
Interestingly, undifferentiated and diffuse type EGCs were more frequently detected in the proximal group than in the distal group, which shows discrepancy with data from previous studies. Studies that compared proximal and distal gastric cancers generally showed that differentiated and intestinal type were predominant in proximal gastric cancer compared with non-proximal gastric cancer [19, 21, 22]. However, predominant type of tumor differentiation might vary across different regions and countries. Several studies included AGC patients as well as EGC that differed from our study population, which may affect the discrepant results from our study in terms of tumor differentiation and Lauren’s classification. A large-scale retrospective Korean study demonstrated that undifferentiated and diffuse type were significantly frequent in the upper third gastric cancer than the middle or distal gastric cancer, which reinforces our study results [37]. We considered that predominance of undifferentiated type, as well as frequent SM invasion, in proximal stomach might be another characteristics of biologic behavior of proximal EGC, because undifferentiated EGCs usually show aggressive histologic findings with deeper invasion depth even in case with relatively small tumor size [38].
The tumor size was also an important parameter with significant differences between both groups in our study, which is consistent with previous data. Endoscopically, the size of the tumor is often underestimated in the proximal EGC compared with the distal EGC, and tumor margin is often ambiguous in the case of undifferentiated EGC [39]. The biological behavior of proximal EGC, and the predominance of undifferentiated and diffuse types in proximal EGC of our study population may lead to significant differences in tumor size between both groups. To minimize the influence of tumor size, we performed subgroup analysis by sorting EGCs measuring < 30 mm. The proximal EGCs also showed undifferentiated type and SM invasion more frequently, and proximal location remained a significant risk factor for SM invasion among the subgroups.
Our study has several limitations. First, due to fundamental limitation of observational study, other important confounding variables such as dietary factors and smoking were not adjusted although we matched age and gender before analysis. Second, the status of H. pylori infection, the most crucial risk factor of gastric cancer, was not investigated in entire study population, and the success or failure of eradication among infected patients was not analyzed. Third, therapeutic procedure of EGC was not uniformly performed. The patient with ESD and those with surgery were mixed and surgery was more frequently performed in the proximal group, which may have affected the difference in recurrence rate according to the location of EGC. Forth, among 63 patients with non-curative resection after ESD, 53 patients did not undergo additional resection due to old age, comorbidities or patients’ refusal, which may weaken accurate assessment of histopathology and prognosis.
In conclusion, our study data suggest that proximal EGCs may exhibit different clinicopathological characteristics and more aggressive biological behavior such as larger size and SM invasion compared with distal EGCs. Further investigation of characteristics of proximal EGC including genetic and molecular signature is needed in the future.
Supporting information
(Proximal_raw data_plosone.).
(XLSX)
Abbreviation
- ESD
endoscopic submucosal dissection
- EGC
early gastric cancer
- SM
submucosal
- EUS
endoscopic ultrasonography
- WLE
white-light endoscopy
- EGJ
esophagogastric junction
- EAC
esophageal adenocarcinoma
- H. pylori
Helicobacter pylori
- BMI
body mass index
- OR
odds ratio
- CI
confidence interval
- AGC
advanced gastric cancer
- ME-NBI
Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from Supporting Information.
Funding Statement
This study was financially supported by a Korea University Grant (grant number: K1700111). All the funding or sources of support received during this specific study had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Herrero R, Park JY, Forman D. The fight against gastric cancer—the IARC Working Group report. Best practice & research Clinical gastroenterology. 2014;28(6):1107–14. 10.1016/j.bpg.2014.10.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fujitani K, Yang HK, Mizusawa J, Kim YW, Terashima M, Han SU, et al. Gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer with a single non-curable factor (REGATTA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(3):309–18. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00553-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ahn JY, Jung HY. Long-term outcome of extended endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer with differentiated histology. Clin Endosc. 2013;46(5):463–6. 10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gotoda T. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10(1):1–11. 10.1007/s10120-006-0408-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bang CS, Park JM, Baik GH, Park JJ, Joo MK, Jang JY, et al. Therapeutic Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastric Cancer with Undifferentiated-Type Histology: A Korean ESD Registry Database Analysis. Clin Endosc. 2017;50(6):569–77. 10.5946/ce.2017.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kim JS, Kang SH, Moon HS, Lee ES, Kim SH, Sung JK, et al. Clinical outcome after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer of absolute and expanded indication. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(17):e6710 10.1097/MD.0000000000006710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Holscher AH, Drebber U, Monig SP, Schulte C, Vallbohmer D, Bollschweiler E. Early gastric cancer: lymph node metastasis starts with deep mucosal infiltration. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):791–7. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bdd3e4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tsujii Y, Kato M, Inoue T, Yoshii S, Nagai K, Fujinaga T, et al. Integrated diagnostic strategy for the invasion depth of early gastric cancer by conventional endoscopy and EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(3):452–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Endoscopic prediction of tumor invasion depth in early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(5):917–27. 10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.053 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and conventional endoscopy for prediction of depth of tumor invasion in early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 2010;42(9):705–13. 10.1055/s-0030-1255617 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection? Surg Endosc. 2010;24(12):3177–85. 10.1007/s00464-010-1112-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Huang Q, Sun Q, Fan XS, Zhou D, Zou XP. Recent advances in proximal gastric carcinoma. J Dig Dis. 2016;17(7):421–32. 10.1111/1751-2980.12355 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):101–12. 10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–43. 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, Ono H, Nakanishi Y, Shimoda T, et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 2000;3(4):219–25. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(1):1–19. 10.1007/s10120-016-0622-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Biondi A, Persiani R, Cananzi F, Zoccali M, Vigorita V, Tufo A, et al. R0 resection in the treatment of gastric cancer: room for improvement. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(27):3358–70. 10.3748/wjg.v16.i27.3358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Saito H, Fukumoto Y, Osaki T, Fukuda K, Tatebe S, Tsujitani S, et al. Distinct recurrence pattern and outcome of adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia in comparison with carcinoma of other regions of the stomach. World J Surg. 2006;30(10):1864–9. 10.1007/s00268-005-0582-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tajima Y, Yamazaki K, Makino R, Nishino N, Masuda Y, Aoki S, et al. Differences in the histological findings, phenotypic marker expressions and genetic alterations between adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia and distal stomach. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(4):631–8. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.An JY, Baik YH, Choi MG, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Bae JM, et al. The prognosis of gastric cardia cancer after R0 resection. Am J Surg. 2010;199(6):725–9. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.04.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Huang Q, Fang C, Shi J, Sun Q, Wu H, Gold JS, et al. Differences in Clinicopathology of Early Gastric Carcinoma between Proximal and Distal Location in 438 Chinese Patients. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13439 10.1038/srep13439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ichikawa D, Komatsu S, Kosuga T, Konishi H, Okamoto K, Shiozaki A, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of clinical early gastric cancer in the upper-third stomach. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(45):12851–6. 10.3748/wjg.v21.i45.12851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Coupland VH, Lagergren J, Konfortion J, Allum W, Mendall MA, Hardwick RH, et al. Ethnicity in relation to incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancer in England. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(11):1908–14. 10.1038/bjc.2012.465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Park JC, Lee YC, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Lee SK, Shin SK, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of proximal gastric carcinoma in a population with high Helicobacter pylori prevalence: a single-center, large-volume study in Korea. Annals of surgical oncology. 2010;17(3):829–37. 10.1245/s10434-009-0785-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Liu Y, Kaneko S, Sobue T. Trends in reported incidences of gastric cancer by tumour location, from 1975 to 1989 in Japan. International journal of epidemiology. 2004;33(4):808–15. 10.1093/ije/dyh053 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.El-Serag HB, Mason AC, Petersen N, Key CR. Epidemiological differences between adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia in the USA. Gut. 2002;50(3):368–72. 10.1136/gut.50.3.368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Maeda H, Okabayashi T, Nishimori I, Sugimoto T, Namikawa T, Dabanaka K, et al. Clinicopathologic features of adenocarcinoma at the gastric cardia: is it different from distal cancer of the stomach? Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2008;206(2):306–10. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.306 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Okabayashi T, Gotoda T, Kondo H, Inui T, Ono H, Saito D, et al. Early carcinoma of the gastric cardia in Japan: is it different from that in the West? Cancer. 2000;89(12):2555–9. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kim JY, Lee HS, Kim N, Shin CM, Lee SH, Park YS, et al. Prevalence and clinicopathologic characteristics of gastric cardia cancer in South Korea. Helicobacter. 2012;17(5):358–68. 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2012.00958.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kim EH, Park JC, Song IJ, Kim YJ, Joh DH, Hahn KY, et al. Prediction model for non-curative resection of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):976–83. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim SJ, Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW, Park SB, Nam HS, et al. Preoperative predictors of beyond endoscopic submucosal dissection indication or lymphovascular invasion in endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017. 10.1007/s00464-017-6009-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Okada K, Fujisaki J, Kasuga A, Omae M, Yoshimoto K, Hirasawa T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography is valuable for identifying early gastric cancers meeting expanded-indication criteria for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):841–8. 10.1007/s00464-010-1279-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kikuchi D, Iizuka T, Hoteya S, Yamada A, Furuhata T, Yamashita S, et al. Usefulness of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging for determining tumor invasion depth in early gastric cancer. Gastroenterology research and practice. 2013;2013:217695 10.1155/2013/217695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Choi YY, Kim SJ, Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW, Park SB, et al. Risk Factors of Submucosal or Lymphovascular Invasion in Early Gastric Cancer <2 cm. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(22):e3822 10.1097/MD.0000000000003822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Pickhardt PJ, Asher DB. Wall thickening of the gastric antrum as a normal finding: multidetector CT with cadaveric comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(4):973–9. Epub 2003/09/23. 10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810973 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Huh CW, Jung DH, Kim H, Kim H, Youn YH, Park H, et al. Clinicopathologic features of gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma in early gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(6):769–72. 10.1002/jso.24385 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Jang JH, Beron RI, Ahn HS, Kong SH, Lee HJ, Kim WH, et al. Clinicopathological Features of Upper Third Gastric Cancer during a 21-Year Period (Single Center Analysis). J Gastric Cancer. 2010;10(4):212–8. 10.5230/jgc.2010.10.4.212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Park JY, Ryu KW, Eom BW, Yoon HM, Kim SJ, Cho SJ, et al. Proposal of the surgical options for primary tumor control during sentinel node navigation surgery based on the discrepancy between preoperative and postoperative early gastric cancer diagnoses. Annals of surgical oncology. 2014;21(4):1123–9. Epub 2013/12/25. 10.1245/s10434-013-3427-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Park HS, Lee SY, Hong SN, Kim JH, Sung IK, Park HS, et al. Early Gastric Cancer-Like Advanced Gastric Cancer versus Advanced Gastric Cancer-Like Early Gastric Cancer. Clin Endosc. 2013;46(2):155–60. 10.5946/ce.2013.46.2.155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
(Proximal_raw data_plosone.).
(XLSX)
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from Supporting Information.