Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histological Grading in Gastric Cancer by Ming Classification: Correlation with Histopathological Subtypes, Metastasis, and Prognosis

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this prospective study was to analyze Ming’s classification in correlation with other currently used classification systems of gastric cancer. In addition, we wanted to define the prognostic significance of the Ming classification system. The present study analyzed material of 117 patients with gastric carcinoma who underwent D2-gastrectomy with curative intent. All specimens were catagorized according to International Union Against Cancer (UICC) classification, World Health Organization (WHO) classification, Borrmann classification, Laurén classification, Goseki classification, Ming classification, and tumor differentiation. For analysis of correlation between the classification systems, the correlation coefficient according to Spearman was calculated. The survival curves have been calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. According to the Ming classification, 38.5% of the carcinomas exhibited an expanding growth pattern, and 61.5% of specimens showed an infiltrating growth pattern. The subtypes according to the Ming and Laurén classification correlated significantly (P < 0.001). WHO classification (P < 0.001), tumor differentiation (P < 0.001), and Goseki classification (P < 0.001), as well as the macroscopic classification of Borrmann (P < 0.001) and the pT and pN categories of the UICC classification exhibited a highly significant correlation with the Ming classification (P < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Median overall survival was 31.3 months. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 3-year survival rates were lower in the infiltrative tumor type when compared to the expansive tumor type according to Ming (P = 0.0847). In multivariate analysis, only the UICC system presented as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). This study shows that the Ming classification correlates significantly with the currently used classification systems for gastric cancer and with the UICC staging system, especially, the pT and pN category. The 3-year survival rates were lower in the infiltrative tumor type than in the expansive tumor type according to Ming. However, the Ming classification is not an independent prognostic factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ming SC. Gastric carcinoma: a pathobiological classification. Cancer 1977;39:2475–2485

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Belli J, et al. Pathologic and phenotypic features of gastric cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;23:292–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Flucke U, Monig SP, Baldus SE, et al. Differences between biopsy- or specimen-related Lauren and World Health Organization classification in gastric cancer. World J Surg 2002;26:137–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lauren PA, Nevalainen TJ. Epidemiology of intestinal and diffuse types of gastric carcinoma. A time-trend study in Finland with comparison between studies from high- and low-risk areas Cancer 1993;71:2926–2933

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Watanabe A, Oshiro T, Oiwa H, et al. Prognosis of patients with gastric cancer and pyloric stenosis: histological differentiation. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:121–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Watanabe H, Nishimaki T. Factors affecting the growth and extension of gastric cancer—analysis of retrospective observation. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1983;10:482–488

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goseki N, Takizawa T, Koike M. Differences in the mode of the extension of gastric cancer classified by histological type: new histological classification of gastric carcinoma. Gut 1992;33:606–612

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Monig S, Baldus SE, Collet PH, et al. Histological grading in gastric cancer by Goseki classification: correlation with histopathological subtypes and prognosis. Anticancer Res 2001;21:617–620

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. You WC, Blot WJ, Chang YS, et al. Diet and high risk of stomach cancer in Shandong, China. Cancer Res 1988;48:3518–3523

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brinton LA, Gridley G, Hrubec Z, et al. Cancer risk following pernicious anaemia. Br J Cancer 1989;59:810–813

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mullaney PJ, Wadley MS, Hyde C, et al. Appraisal of compliance with the UICC/AJCC staging system in the staging of gastric cancer. Union International Contra la Cancrum/American Joint Committee on Cancer. Br J Surg 2002;89:1405–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bollschweiler E. Benefits and limitations of Kaplan-Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2003;388:239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ming SC. Cellular and molecular pathology of gastric carcinoma and precursor lesions: a critical review. Gastric Cancer 1998;1:31–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jass JR, Sobin LH, Watanabe H. The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors. A commentary on the second edition, Cancer 1990;66:2162–2167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mulligan RM. Histogenesis and biologic behavior of gastric carcinoma. Pathol Annu 1972;7:349–415

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Filipe MI, Jankowski J. Growth factors and oncogenes in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastric metaplasia. Endoscopy 1993;25:637–641

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hermanek P. Tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas: histopathology, staging and prognosis Anticancer Res 1999;19:2393–2396

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Songun I, van de Velde CJ, Arends JW, et al. Classification of gastric carcinoma using the Goseki system provides prognostic information additional to TNM staging. Cancer 1999;85:2114–2118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Monig SP, Zirbes TK, Schroder W, et al. Staging of gastric cancer: correlation of lymph node size and metastatic infiltration. A.J.R. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:365–367

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dixon MF, Martin IG, Sue-Ling HM, et al. Goseki grading in gastric cancer: comparison with existing systems of grading and its reproducibility. Histopathology 1994;25:309–316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Piard F, Hillon P, Levillain P, et al. Does Ming’s classification of gastric carcinomas have epidemiologic or prognostic value? Ann Pathol 1986;6:329–334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Davessar K, Pezzullo JC, Kessimian N, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma: prognostic significance of several pathologic parameters and histologic classifications. Hum Pathol 1990;21:325–332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ribeiro MM, Sarmento JA, Sobrinho Simoes MA, et al. Prognostic significance of Lauren and Ming classifications and other pathologic parameters in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1981;47:780–784

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Garnier P, Vielh P, Asselain B, et al. Prognostic value of the Lauren and Ming classifications in gastric adenocarcinoma. Multidimensional analysis. Gastroenterol. Clin Biol 1988;12:553–558

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cimerman M, Repse S, Jelenc F, et al. Comparison of Lauren’s, Ming’s and WHO histological classifications of gastric cancer as a prognostic factor for operated patients. Int Surg 1994;79:27–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dirschmid K, Scheiden R, Zimmermann G, et al. Tubular differentiated stomach carcinoma of the (Ming) infiltrating type. Pathologe 1996;17:122–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Visceral and Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Straße 9, Cologne, 50931, Germany

    Thomas Luebke MD, Guido Grass MD, Elfriede Bollschweiler MD, Arnulf H. Hoelscher MD & Stefan P. Moenig MD

  2. Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Straße 9, Cologne, 50931, Germany

    Stephan E. Baldus MD, Jürgen Thiele MD & Hans-Peter Dienes MD

Authors
  1. Thomas Luebke MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan E. Baldus MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guido Grass MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elfriede Bollschweiler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jürgen Thiele MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans-Peter Dienes MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arnulf H. Hoelscher MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stefan P. Moenig MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan P. Moenig MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luebke, T., Baldus, S.E., Grass, G. et al. Histological Grading in Gastric Cancer by Ming Classification: Correlation with Histopathological Subtypes, Metastasis, and Prognosis. World J. Surg. 29, 1422–1427 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7795-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7795-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation