International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 1565–1573 | Cite as

Gastrectomy for invasive micropapillary carcinoma is associated with poorer disease-free and disease-specific survival

  • Mikihiro KanoEmail author
  • Jun Hihara
  • Mayumi Kaneko
  • Kenichiro Uemura
  • Hiroki Ohge
  • Taijiro Sueda
Original Article



Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) is a relatively rare subtype of gastric adenocarcinoma and has aggressive histopathologic characteristics, including lymphatic and vascular invasion. However, the associated long-term survival outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of gastric adenocarcinoma with and without IMPC using propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.


Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent gastrectomy between 2006 and 2015 were included in the analysis. PSM analysis was performed to compensate for the background heterogeneity between the groups. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) after gastrectomy, and the secondary endpoints were disease-specific survival (DSS) and recurrence pattern.


Of 882 patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma, with a follow-up duration greater than 36 months, 35 were diagnosed as having gastric adenocarcinoma with IMPC. After PSM, 70 patients, including 35 with IMPC and 35 without IMPC, were selected. Gastric adenocarcinoma with IMPC is characterized by lymphatic invasion (94% versus 69%, p = 0.012). Patients with IMPC had significantly poorer DFS than those without IMPC, with 3-year DFS rates of 62.2% and 93.4% (p = 0.003), respectively. Furthermore, a significant difference was also observed in DSS (p = 0.016); patients with IMPC more frequently developed liver metastasis (20%) than those without IMPC (3%, p = 0.006).


Resected gastric carcinoma with IMPC was associated with poorer DFS and DSS; furthermore, an increased rate of lymphatic invasion and liver metastasis was noted than in cases without IMPC.


Invasive micropapillary carcinoma Gastric carcinoma Liver metastasis Prognosis Propensity score matching 



We would like to extend our appreciation to our staff members, who provided carefully considered feedback and valuable comments. Furthermore, we have had the support and encouragement of other two pathologists (Shinji Kimura and Hiroo Matsuura) of the department of Pathology in Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. This study is a retrospective observational study, carried out by the opt-out method of our hospital website.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Siriaunkgul S, Tavassoli FA (1993) Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol 6:660–662PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De la Cruz C, Moriya T, Endoh M et al (2004) Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study. Pathol Int 54:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guzinska-Ustymowicz K, Niewiarowska K, Pryczynicz A (2014) Invasive micropapillary carcinoma: a distinct type of adenocarcinomas in the gastrointestinal tract. World J Gastroenterol 20:4597–4606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eom DW, Kang GH, Han SH et al (2011) Gastric micropapillary carcinoma: a distinct subtype with a significantly worse prognosis in TNM stages I and II. Am J Surg Pathol 35:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujita T, Gotohda N, Kato Y et al (2012) Clinicopathological features of stomach cancer with invasive micropapillary component. Gastric Cancer 15:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Q, Ming J, Zhang S et al (2015) Micropapillary component in gastric adenocarcinoma: an aggressive variant associated with poor prognosis. Gastric Cancer 18:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roh JH, Srivastava A, Lauwers GY et al (2010) Micropapillary carcinoma of stomach: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 11 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 34:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JH, Kim JH, Choi JW et al (2010) The presence of a micropapillary component predicts aggressive behaviour in early and advanced gastric adenocarcinomas. Pathology 42:560–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barresi V, Branca G, Ieni A et al (2015) Phagocytosis (cannibalism) of apoptotic neutrophils by tumor cells in gastric micropapillary carcinomas. World J Gastroenterol 21:5548–5554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ushiku T, Matsusaka K, Iwasaki Y et al (2011) Gastric carcinoma with invasive micropapillary pattern and its association with lymph node metastasis. Histopathology 59:1081–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohtsuki Y, Kuroda N, Yunoki S et al (2013) Immunohistochemical analysis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma pattern in four cases of gastric cancer. Med Mol Morphol 46:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 14:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2017) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer 20:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shi WB, Yang LJ, Hu X et al (2014) Clinico-pathological features and prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared to invasive ductal carcinoma: a population-based study from China. PLoS One 9(6):e101390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hattori T, Sentani K, Hattori Y et al (2016) Pure invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the esophagogastric junction with lymph nodes and liver metastasis. Pathol Int 66:583–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nashimoto A, Akazawa K, Isobe Y et al (2013) Gastric cancer treated in 2002 in Japan: 2009 annual report of the JGCA nationwide registry. Gastric Cancer 16:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gong Y, Sun X, Huo L et al (2005) Expression of cell adhesion molecules, CD44s and E-cadherin, and microvessel density in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology 46:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aizawa M, Honda M, Hiki N et al (2017) Oncological outcomes of function-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a multicenter propensity score matched cohort analysis comparing pylorus-preserving gastrectomy versus conventional distal gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 20:709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryHiroshima City Asa Citizens HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of PathologyHiroshima City Asa Citizens HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations