Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A scoring system for patients with a tumor-positive lateral resection margin after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for residual/recurrent tumors in patients with a tumor-positive lateral resection margin (LRM+) after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer (EGC) and to establish the criteria for performing additional treatment.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of EGC. Clinicopathological characteristics and risk factors for residual/recurrent tumor in LRM+ patients were analyzed.

Results

Eighty-two patients (84 lesions) with LRM+ after EMR (n = 45) or ESD (n = 39) were enrolled. Forty patients underwent additional gastrectomy or ESD, and 44 were closely observed. The residual/recurrent tumor rate was 34.5 % (29 of 84 lesions). Univariate analysis found that the residual/recurrent tumor was associated with the endoscopic resection type (EMR), undifferentiated histology, number of involved directions, rate of lateral resection margin involvement and the total length (mm) of the lateral resection margin involved by the tumor. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, undifferentiated histology and rate (%) were independent risk factors (odds ratio [OR] 5.28, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.13–24.72, p = 0.035 and OR 1.08, 95 % CI 1.03–1.14, p = 0.004, respectively). Clinicopathological factors that were identified from the univariate and multivariate analyses were scored in order to predict residual/recurrent tumors.

Conclusion

We suggest a scoring system for additional treatment in patients with LRM+ after endoscopic resection of EGC based on the development of residual/recurrent tumors. This scoring system enables a more detailed selection of cases and may be useful in determining further treatment.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, Ono H, Nakanishi Y, Shimoda T (2000) Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer 3:219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, Iishi H, Tanabe S, Oyama T (2006) A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 9:262–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Takenaka R, Kawahara Y, Okada H, Hori K, Inoue M, Kawano S (2008) Risk factors associated with local recurrence of early gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 68:887–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jang JS, Choi SR, Qureshi W, Kim MC, Kim SJ, Jeung JS (2009) Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric neoplastic lesions at a single institution in South Korea. Scand J Gastroenterol 44:1315–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee JH, Kim JH, Kim DH, Jeon TY, Kim DH, Kim GH (2010) Is surgical treatment necessary after non-curative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer? J Gastric Cancer 10:182–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Isomoto H, Shikuwa S, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ikeda K, Nishiyama H (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut 58:331–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Isomoto H, Ohnita K, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ikeda K, Nishiyama H (2010) Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with early gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:311–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jung H, Bae JM, Choi MG, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S (2011) Surgical outcome after incomplete endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancer. Br J Surg 98:73–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoon H, Kim SG, Choi J, Im JP, Kim JS, Kim WH (2013) Risk factors of residual or recurrent tumor in patients with a tumor-positive resection margin after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1561–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T, Shirao K, Yamaguchi H, Saito D (2001) Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut 48:225–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakajima T (2002) Gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan. Gastric Cancer 5:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Soetikno R, Kaltenbach T, Yeh R, Gotoda T (2005) Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol 23:4490–4498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (1998) Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma—2nd English Edition. Gastric Cancer 1:10–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakamura Y, Yasuoka H, Tsujimoto M, Kurozumi K, Nakahara M, Nakao K (2006) Importance of lymph vessels in gastric cancer: a prognostic indicator in general and a predictor for lymph node metastasis in early stage cancer. J Clin Pathol 59:77–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Park JC, Lee SK, Seo JH, Kim YJ, Chung H, Shin SK (2010) Predictive factors for local recurrence after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: long-term clinical outcome in a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 24:2842–2849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kakushima N, Ono H, Tanaka M, Takizawa K, Yamaguchi Y, Matsubayashi H (2011) Factors related to lateral margin positivity for cancer in gastric specimens of endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc 23:227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Seto Y, Shimoyama S, Kitayama J, Mafune K, Kaminishi M, Aikou T (2001) Lymph node metastasis and preoperative diagnosis of depth of invasion in early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 4:34–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Abe N, Watanabe T, Suzuki K, Machida H, Toda H, Nakaya Y (2002) Risk factors predictive of lymph node metastasis in depressed early gastric cancer. Am J Surg 183:168–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ajani JA, Bentrem DJ, Besh S, D’Amico TA, Das P, Denlinger C (2013) Gastric cancer, version 2.2013: featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:531–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bae SY, Jang TH, Min BH, Lee JH, Rhee PL, Rhee JC (2012) Early additional endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with positive lateral resection margins after initial endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 75:432–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kikuchi D, Iizuka T, Hoteya S, Yamada A, Furuhata T, Yamashita S (2012) Safety and efficacy of secondary endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual gastric carcinoma after primary endoscopic submucosal dissection. Digestion 86:288–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young Soo Park.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Jae Jin Hwang, Kwung Jun Park, Young Soo Park, Hye Seung Lee, Hyuk Yoon, Cheol Min Shin, Nayoung Kim, Dong Ho Lee have disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

Additional information

Jae Jin Hwang and Kwung Jun Park are contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hwang, J.J., Park, K.J., Park, Y.S. et al. A scoring system for patients with a tumor-positive lateral resection margin after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 30, 2751–2758 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4543-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4543-9

Keywords

Navigation