» Articles » PMID: 23181547

Undifferentiated-type Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Prognostic Impact of Three Histological Types

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2012 Nov 28
PMID 23181547
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The prognostic value of the three constituents of undifferentiated-type gastric adenocarcinoma remains unclear. The present study assessed the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of undifferentiated-type mucinous adenocarcinoma (uMAC) and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRC) compared with those of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods: In total, 1,376 patients with undifferentiated-type gastric adenocarcinoma were included, consisting of 1,002 patients diagnosed with PDAC, 54 with uMAC and 320 with SRC. Clinicopathological factors and survival rates were compared among the three histological types.

Results: Significant differences in the distribution of pathological stages were observed among the groups. Patients with SRC had a significantly better survival rate than those with PDAC or uMAC, in both the all patients including non-curative resected patients and curative-resected groups. In addition, there was significant difference in survival between the PDAC and uMAC groups. Multivariate analysis suggested that age, gender, tumor depth, lymph node metastasis and curability significantly affected survival. Histological type was not an independent prognostic factor. There was no significant difference in the pattern of recurrence among the three groups.

Conclusions: The uMAC and SRC had worse and favorable prognosis compared with PDCA, respectively. However, there were no differences in survival by pathological stage, thus histological type was not an independent predictor of prognosis.

Citing Articles

Rare epithelial gastric cancers: a review of the current treatment knowledge.

Petrillo A, Ottaviano M, Pompella L, Giunta E, Pisapia P, Marte G Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2025; 17:17588359241255628.

PMID: 39867743 PMC: 11760139. DOI: 10.1177/17588359241255628.


Nomogram for pre-procedural prediction of lymph node metastasis in patients with submucosal early gastric cancer.

Yu W, Xu Z, Li B, Zi M, Ren J, Wang W Surg Endosc. 2025; 39(3):1661-1671.

PMID: 39786464 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11517-z.


Histogenetic insights and genetic landscape of fibromatosis-like undifferentiated gastric carcinoma: a focused study.

Wang Y, Wang S, Liao X, Wang Z, Li P, Yun T World J Surg Oncol. 2024; 22(1):189.

PMID: 39049011 PMC: 11267673. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-024-03479-2.


Clinical Features of Gastric Signet Ring Cell Cancer: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dal Cero M, Bencivenga M, Liu D, Sacco M, Alloggio M, Kerckhoffs K Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(21).

PMID: 37958365 PMC: 10647446. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15215191.


Prognostic Survival Significance of Signet Ring Cell (SRC) Gastric Cancer: Retrospective Analysis from a Single Western Center.

Graziosi L, Marino E, Natalizi N, Donini A J Pers Med. 2023; 13(7).

PMID: 37511770 PMC: 10382060. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071157.


References
1.
Kunisaki C, Akiyama H, Nomura M, Matsuda G, Otsuka Y, Ono H . Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes of mucinous gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13(6):836-42. DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2006.03.077. View

2.
Hidaka S, Tanaka K, Takeshita H, Sumida Y, Fukuoka H, Abo T . Clinicopathology and prognosis of mucinous gastric carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008; 55(82-83):791-4. View

3.
Lim S, Woo L, Kim D, Kim Y, Kim S . Clinicopathologic features of mucinous gastric carcinoma. Dig Surg. 2002; 19(4):286-90. DOI: 10.1159/000064583. View

4.
Yasuda K, Adachi Y, Shiraishi N, Yamaguchi K, Shiromizu A, Kitano S . Pathology and prognosis of mucinous gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2001; 76(4):272-7. DOI: 10.1002/jso.1045. View

5.
Moriguchi S, Kamakura T, Odaka T, Nose Y, Maehara Y, Korenaga D . Clinical features of the differentiated and undifferentiated types of advanced gastric carcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses. J Surg Oncol. 1991; 48(3):202-6. DOI: 10.1002/jso.2930480313. View