Proximal gastric cancers resected via a transabdominal-only approach: Results and comparisons to distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach

Lawrence E. Harrison, Martin S. Karpeh, Murray F. Brennan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) treated by a transabdominal-only resection to that of patients with distal gastric cancer (DGC). Summary Background Data: It has been suggested that PGC is inherently more aggressive than DGC. The worse survival of PGC compared with that of DGC may be, in part, because of the difficulty distinguishing PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. By defining a subset of PGC reseated using an transabdominal- only approach, one may discriminate true PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. This subset of patients is a more appropriate comparison group when analyzing outcome relative to patients with DGC. Methods: A review of the prospective database for gastric adenocarcinoma at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center between July 1985 and August 1995 identified 98 patients with PGC resection via a transabdominal-only approach. Of these, 65 underwent proximal gastrectomy and 33 underwent total gastrectomy. For DGC, 258 required a distal gastrectomy and 71 required total gastrectomy. Results: The overall 5 year survival of patients with PGC was 42% (median survival, 47 months), whereas the 5 year survival for patients with DGC was 61% (median survival, 106 months, p - 0.03). Within each stage, there were no significant survival differences, but in all stages, survival was better for patients with DGC. More important, the site of the primary tumor appears to affect survival, with a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally. Conclusions: Despite excluding distal esophageal cancers, survival for patients with PGC remains worse than for those with DGC. Late stage of presentation could not explain this difference. It appears that PGCs are inherently more aggressive then are DGCs. In addition, site of the primary tumor appears to affect outcome, with a trend toward a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)678-685
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume225
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 5 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stomach Neoplasms
Stomach
Adenocarcinoma
Survival
Gastrectomy
Neoplasms
Esophageal Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{bb79d42f098d4295972b501be9de0bad,
title = "Proximal gastric cancers resected via a transabdominal-only approach: Results and comparisons to distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) treated by a transabdominal-only resection to that of patients with distal gastric cancer (DGC). Summary Background Data: It has been suggested that PGC is inherently more aggressive than DGC. The worse survival of PGC compared with that of DGC may be, in part, because of the difficulty distinguishing PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. By defining a subset of PGC reseated using an transabdominal- only approach, one may discriminate true PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. This subset of patients is a more appropriate comparison group when analyzing outcome relative to patients with DGC. Methods: A review of the prospective database for gastric adenocarcinoma at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center between July 1985 and August 1995 identified 98 patients with PGC resection via a transabdominal-only approach. Of these, 65 underwent proximal gastrectomy and 33 underwent total gastrectomy. For DGC, 258 required a distal gastrectomy and 71 required total gastrectomy. Results: The overall 5 year survival of patients with PGC was 42{\%} (median survival, 47 months), whereas the 5 year survival for patients with DGC was 61{\%} (median survival, 106 months, p - 0.03). Within each stage, there were no significant survival differences, but in all stages, survival was better for patients with DGC. More important, the site of the primary tumor appears to affect survival, with a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally. Conclusions: Despite excluding distal esophageal cancers, survival for patients with PGC remains worse than for those with DGC. Late stage of presentation could not explain this difference. It appears that PGCs are inherently more aggressive then are DGCs. In addition, site of the primary tumor appears to affect outcome, with a trend toward a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally.",
author = "Harrison, {Lawrence E.} and Karpeh, {Martin S.} and Brennan, {Murray F.}",
year = "1997",
month = "8",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1097/00000658-199706000-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "225",
pages = "678--685",
journal = "Annals of Surgery",
issn = "0003-4932",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

Proximal gastric cancers resected via a transabdominal-only approach : Results and comparisons to distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach. / Harrison, Lawrence E.; Karpeh, Martin S.; Brennan, Murray F.

In: Annals of Surgery, Vol. 225, No. 6, 05.08.1997, p. 678-685.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proximal gastric cancers resected via a transabdominal-only approach

T2 - Results and comparisons to distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach

AU - Harrison, Lawrence E.

AU - Karpeh, Martin S.

AU - Brennan, Murray F.

PY - 1997/8/5

Y1 - 1997/8/5

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) treated by a transabdominal-only resection to that of patients with distal gastric cancer (DGC). Summary Background Data: It has been suggested that PGC is inherently more aggressive than DGC. The worse survival of PGC compared with that of DGC may be, in part, because of the difficulty distinguishing PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. By defining a subset of PGC reseated using an transabdominal- only approach, one may discriminate true PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. This subset of patients is a more appropriate comparison group when analyzing outcome relative to patients with DGC. Methods: A review of the prospective database for gastric adenocarcinoma at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center between July 1985 and August 1995 identified 98 patients with PGC resection via a transabdominal-only approach. Of these, 65 underwent proximal gastrectomy and 33 underwent total gastrectomy. For DGC, 258 required a distal gastrectomy and 71 required total gastrectomy. Results: The overall 5 year survival of patients with PGC was 42% (median survival, 47 months), whereas the 5 year survival for patients with DGC was 61% (median survival, 106 months, p - 0.03). Within each stage, there were no significant survival differences, but in all stages, survival was better for patients with DGC. More important, the site of the primary tumor appears to affect survival, with a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally. Conclusions: Despite excluding distal esophageal cancers, survival for patients with PGC remains worse than for those with DGC. Late stage of presentation could not explain this difference. It appears that PGCs are inherently more aggressive then are DGCs. In addition, site of the primary tumor appears to affect outcome, with a trend toward a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) treated by a transabdominal-only resection to that of patients with distal gastric cancer (DGC). Summary Background Data: It has been suggested that PGC is inherently more aggressive than DGC. The worse survival of PGC compared with that of DGC may be, in part, because of the difficulty distinguishing PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. By defining a subset of PGC reseated using an transabdominal- only approach, one may discriminate true PGC from distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. This subset of patients is a more appropriate comparison group when analyzing outcome relative to patients with DGC. Methods: A review of the prospective database for gastric adenocarcinoma at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center between July 1985 and August 1995 identified 98 patients with PGC resection via a transabdominal-only approach. Of these, 65 underwent proximal gastrectomy and 33 underwent total gastrectomy. For DGC, 258 required a distal gastrectomy and 71 required total gastrectomy. Results: The overall 5 year survival of patients with PGC was 42% (median survival, 47 months), whereas the 5 year survival for patients with DGC was 61% (median survival, 106 months, p - 0.03). Within each stage, there were no significant survival differences, but in all stages, survival was better for patients with DGC. More important, the site of the primary tumor appears to affect survival, with a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally. Conclusions: Despite excluding distal esophageal cancers, survival for patients with PGC remains worse than for those with DGC. Late stage of presentation could not explain this difference. It appears that PGCs are inherently more aggressive then are DGCs. In addition, site of the primary tumor appears to affect outcome, with a trend toward a worse outcome as the tumor moves proximally.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030745053&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030745053&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00000658-199706000-00005

DO - 10.1097/00000658-199706000-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 9230808

AN - SCOPUS:0030745053

VL - 225

SP - 678

EP - 685

JO - Annals of Surgery

JF - Annals of Surgery

SN - 0003-4932

IS - 6

ER -