0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Indications for a Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer With Proper Muscle Invasion FREE

Shouji Shimoyama, MD; Ken-ichi Mafune, MD; Michio Kaminishi, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.


Arch Surg. 2003;138(11):1235-1239. doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.11.1235.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  Our previous demonstrations of the feasibility of a pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with a wider-scope lymphadenectomy for early gastric cancer (GC) have raised the possibility of applying pylorus-preserving gastrectomy to a broader segment of GC patients, such as those having GC with invasion extending into the proper muscle layer (GCpm).

Design  Case series.

Setting  Tertiary care center.

Patients  This study comprised 107 patients with solitary primary GCpm located in the middle or lower third of the stomach.

Intervention  All patients underwent gastrectomy, using at least the former D2 dissection of the American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Main Outcome Measures  Patterns and sites of nodal involvement were analyzed in relationship to other clinicopathologic characteristics, including preoperative and intraoperative evaluations of tumor depth (cT), nodal involvement (cN), and serosal involvement. The conditions required were serosal negativity and measurements less than or equal to cT2 cN0 with histologic proof of node negativity, or if positive, the positive nodes had to be confined to the first or selective second tier. The selective second-tier nodes were defined as those along the left gastric, common hepatic, and celiac arteries.

Results  The factors favoring node negativity were serosal negativity, cN0, or both. For tumors that were serosal-negative and less than or equal to cT2 cN0 to meet the above conditions, a tumor in the middle third of the stomach had to be less than or equal to 2 cm in the maximum diameter, and that in the lower third could be any size. No patients with serosal negativity and cT2 cN0 GCpm less than or equal to 2 cm in diameter died of cancer or had positive nodes beyond the selective second tier.

Conclusions  Considering the required distance between the pyloric ring and distal margin of the tumor to avoid a positive resection margin, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with a selective second-tier node dissection is optimal for tumors that are serosal negative, less than or equal to cT2 cN0, and less than or equal to 2 cm in maximum diameter when located in the middle or lower third of the stomach.

CURRENT SURGICAL trends toward the treatment of gastric cancer (GC) recognize that the quality of postoperative life may be improved with less invasive surgery, including endoscopic mucosal resection, local resection with1 or without24 adjacent lymphadenectomy, and gastrectomy with a modified D1 lymphadenectomy,5 especially for carefully selected patients with mucosal GC. In this context, we6 and other investigators79 have introduced the pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG), a less invasive surgical option, for the treatment of early GC. By preserving pyloric function, the PPG has been shown to have many advantages over distal gastrectomy with conventional Billroth I reconstruction in terms of the prevention of postgastrectomy disorders, such as dumping syndrome and alkaline regurgitation.69 Most of the reported PPG procedures by other investigators, however, have not included suprapyloric lymph node dissection to preserve the pyloric branch of the vagal nerve and the right gastric artery; thus, indications for such a type of PPG are quite limited.79 We have recently demonstrated that PPG with a wider-scope (perigastric and regional) lymphadenectomy, including the dissection of suprapyloric lymph nodes, is feasible, safe, and conducive to a better postoperative quality of life.6 We have rationally performed PPG on patients with submucosal GC, and it is possible to apply PPG for an even a broader segment of patients. Recent animal experiments have indicated no postoperative functional differences between PPG with and without dissection of the pyloric branch of the vagal nerve, supporting the idea that PPG with perigastric and regional lymphadenectomy does not compromise its postoperative advantages.10

For node-positive and/or GC with invasion extending into the proper muscle layer (GCpm) or farther, an extended lymphadenectomy has been the advocated treatment in Japan as well as in several Western institutes.1116 Since GCpm rarely exhibits peritoneal relapse,17,18 attempts to reduce the risks of regional node recurrence provide increased chances for successful cures in patients with GCpm. The ability of such risk reduction by an extended lymphadenectomy is supported by a recent randomized study in which a D2 dissection led to a reduction in local recurrence frequency compared with a D1 dissection.19 Therefore, we have raised the hypothesis that some segments of GCpm patients can also be treated by PPG when lymphadenectomy extends to the second tier. If this is true, these selected patients have a chance to avoid postgastrectomy disorders, a goal that can hardly be achieved by conventional Billroth I reconstruction. We demonstrate here that PPG with a priority second-tier node dissection (a modified D2 dissection) is sufficient for curative intent for serosal-negative, node-negative GCpm less than or equal to 2 cm in maximum diameter.

PATIENTS AND TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS

One hundred fifty patients with primary solitary GCpm underwent curative resection (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer R0) between 1976 and 2000 in the department of gastrointestinal surgery, University of Tokyo (Tokyo, Japan). Exclusions were made for those who had GC located in the upper third or the whole stomach (28 patients) and for those undergoing a D1 lymphadenectomy (15 patients); thus, the remaining 107 patients exhibiting middle- or lower-third GCpm formed the study population. The clinicopathologic characteristics of these patients included age, sex, predominant tumor location, gross form, maximum tumor diameter, preoperative and intraoperative findings concerning tumor depth (T) and nodal involvement (N), serosal findings at laparotomy, lymphatic and vascular invasion, and Lauren histologic type. The maximum tumor diameter was evaluated histologically. Gross form and degree of N were expressed according to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (JRSGC).20 Gross form was divided into 3 types: localized (Borrmann types 1 and 2), invasive (Bormann types 3 and 4), and advanced. The advanced type was histologically proved to be an advanced GC but macroscopically resembled an early GC.21

LYMPH NODE STATIONS AND TIERS AND SCOPE OF LYMPHADENECTOMY

The lymph node stations that correspond with specific lymph node tiers have recently been revised by the JRSGC.20 In addition to the second-tier nodes defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) in 1987,22 the new JRSGC classification has recognized lymph nodes along the hepatoduodenal ligament (station 12a) and at the root of the superior mesenteric vein (station 14v) as the second-tier nodes. The grouping of nodal tiers can be modified slightly depending on the tumor location (Table 1). Since these 2 stations belonged to the third tier in the former AJCC classification (and also in the former JRSGC classification), they are considered more upstream nodes for both middle- and lower-third GC. In the new JRSGC classification, therefore, a "complete" D2 dissection has come to require clearance of these newly added stations. Under these circumstances, in the present study, the dissection of first-tier nodes as well as that of preferential lymph nodes along the left gastric (station 7), common hepatic (station 8), and celiac (station 9) arteries can be defined as a modified D2 dissection, and these 3 stations are defined as selective second-tier stations.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Definitions of First-, Second-, and Third-Tier and Distant Nodes, Each Node Station, and the Assigned Station Number According to the JRSGC*20

Following the new JRSGC definitions of lymph node stations and tiers, the extent of N was expressed as N0 if involvement was not observed, N1 if it was confined to the first-tier nodes, N2 if it extended to the second-tier nodes, and N3 if it extended to the third-tier nodes. Among the 107 patients, an AJCC-D222 was performed in 63 patients, a JRSGC-D220 in 35 patients, and a D3 in 9 patients. A distal6 and total gastrectomy was performed in 97 and 10 patients, respectively. Lymphadenectomy at the splenic hilum was achieved in 15 patients by splenectomy or by skeletonizing the short gastric artery and splenic hilum.23 The scope of lymphadenectomy and amount of resection depended on the surgeon's decision to achieve an R0 resection.

DISCRIMINATION AMONG PREOPERATIVE, INTRAOPERATIVE, AND POSTOPERATIVE T AND N FINDINGS

Clinical classification of T (cT) and N (cN) was determined by preoperative and intraoperative evaluations, including barium radiography, upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography when possible, and findings from surgical exploration. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been applied for the preoperative evaluation of cT since 1987. Evaluations of serosal involvement during surgery were also recorded and classified as serosal-negative, suspected involvement, and serosal-positive. The intraoperative cN classifications were evaluated by node palpation. Pathologic N classification (pN), determined postoperatively, was based on routine hematoxylin-eosin–based histologic examinations in the resected specimens.

FOLLOW-UP AND RECURRENCE

The last date of follow-up was May 2002. Recurrence was confirmed by clinical and radiologic findings. The first site of detectable failure was recorded as the predominant recurrence patterns, which were classified into 4 groups: hematogenous metastasis, peritoneal dissemination, distant lymphatic spread, and regional lymph node recurrence.

STATISTICS

An unpaired t test was used to test the equality between the 2 means of variables. The Fisher exact test or χ2 test was used to test the independence between the 2 groups. P = .05 was considered significant.

CHARACTERISTICS OF N IN PATIENTS WITH GCpm

Table 2 presents the incidences of overall node-positive pN1, pN2, and pN3. The patients with pN2 or greater comprised 32.7% of the 52 node-positive patients. No significant difference was found in incidences of each pN between middle- and lower-third GCpm (P = .6). The lower-third GCpm exhibited more frequent incidences of intestinal-type histologic characteristics (P = .03) and vascular invasion (P = .04).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Patient Distribution of Each Clinicopathologic Parameter in Each Cancer Location*

Patients with node-negative GCpm showed significantly higher incidences of cN0 (P = .006) and of the combined findings of serosal negativity and measurements less than or equal to cT2 cN0 (P = .01) than patients with node-positive GCpm (Table 3). Furthermore, the correlation between nodal status and serosal negativity was marginally significant (P = .06). On the other hand, neither the distributions of sex, predominant tumor location, gross form, histologic type, nor the mean values of age, maximum tumor diameter, and dissected nodes proved significant between node-positive and node-negative patients (Table 3). The distribution of pN was determined by preoperative and intraoperative findings and was dependent on tumor diameter. Patient distributions of each pN were analyzed according to the predominant tumor location, histologic type, maximum tumor diameter, serosal findings, and cT cN classifications (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Node-Negative and -Positive Patient Distributions in Relationship to Clinicopathologic Factors*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Distributions of Patients With Node-Negative, First-Tier Node-Positive, and Greater Than or Equal to Second-Tier Node-Negative Tumors in Relationship to Clinicopathologic Classification, Histologic Type, and Maximum Cancer Diameter*

Among the middle-third GCpms, intestinal-type tumors that were serosal negative and less than or equal to cT2 cN0 revealed pN0 or, even if they were node-positive, the positive nodes were confined to the first or selective second tier when the maximum tumor diameter was less than or equal to 2 cm. Nodal involvement extended beyond the selective second tier if the maximum tumor diameter exceeded 2 cm. The same findings were obtained in diffuse-type tumors with serosal negativity and measurements less than or equal to cT2 cN0.

Among the lower-third GCpms, most of the tumors that were serosal-negative and less than or equal to cT2 cN0 were actually pN0 or pN1, irrespective of the histologic type and maximum tumor diameter. One exception was a patient with selective second-tier node-positive cancer with a histologically diffuse tumor greater than or equal to 5 cm in maximum diameter. Among the 62 patients with cN0, 23 patients (37%) were found to have node-positive cancer (≥pN1).

RECURRENCE PATTERNS AND SURVIVAL

Overall, the mean and median follow-up periods were 100 and 108 months, respectively. Nine patients died of cancer, the documented failure patterns being hematogenous metastasis in 6 patients and a distant lymphatic spread in 3 patients. No patients exhibited peritoneal relapse or regional lymph node recurrence. In patients with serosal negativity and cT2 cN0 less than or equal to 2 cm in maximum diameter (13 patients), an AJCC-D2 dissection was performed in 8 patients and a JRSGC-D2 dissection in 5 patients. Five patients had positive nodes; however, they were confined to the first and selective second tier, and nodal involvement beyond that was not observed. No patients died of cancer during a mean follow-up of 121 months (range, 65-169 months).

Extensive archives of patients with GC in Japan demonstrate that the incidences of overall node-positive, pN1, and greater than or equal to pN2 in GCpm are 53%, 30%, and 23%, respectively.24 These incidences are consistent with our findings, suggesting that our sample of patients was not an eccentric population and had received a sufficient lymphadenectomy, and that a misinterpretation of the actual positive node location, ie, stage migration phenomenon, is unlikely. Our results also agree with the previous analyses of failure patterns, in which serosal-negative GC rarely developed peritoneal dissemination and hematogenous metastasis was the most frequent.17,18 These findings clearly suggest that the complete elimination of cancer-bearing lymph nodes is essential and provides a chance for successful cure in the GCpm patient. From the data demonstrated in the present study and others,24 there is no doubt that D1 dissection alone leaves positive nodes in the second tier, which account for approximately 23% to 33% of patients with node-positive GCpm. Therefore, the recommended scope of lymphadenectomy for GCpm, in Japan as well as in several Western institutes, has been at least a D2 dissection.1116

Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy has been reported to have many advantages over conventional Billroth I reconstruction. The PPG preserves pyloric function, which prevents dumping syndromes,6,7 preserves the reservoir function of the residual stomach,8 reduces alkaline fluid regurgitation,9 and improves postoperative nutritional status.6 The scope of lymphadenectomy in our PPG, in contrast with that of other investigators,79 includes suprapyloric lymph nodes, making it possible to extend the scope to the second tier. Therefore, PPG can be theoretically applied to some segments of the GCpm patient population and, if so, PPG is preferable to conventional Billroth I reconstruction for such patients when a negative resection margin can be achieved. Among the second-tier nodes, the selective second-tier nodes should be targeted for preferential dissection (a modified D2 dissection) to increase the possibility of leaving an intact spleen and pancreas in accordance with the concept of less-invasive surgery. The above hypothesis has compelled us to search for a segment of GCpm patients who can be cured by PPG with a modified D2 dissection.

Recent immunohistochemical analyses have revealed micrometastases of GC in the dissected nodes, which cannot be detected by routine hematoxylin-eosin–based testing. The reported incidences of micrometastases of 12% to 30% in mucosal GC,2527 15% to 25% in submucosal GC,2529 and 17% to 24% in all early GC25,26,30 suggest a potential risk of nodal microinvolvement even for early GC. Although the adverse survival effect on micrometastases remains controversial,2630 the existence of micrometastases provides, at the moment, a theoretical basis for proposing that the scope of lymphadenectomy should be larger than the scope of nodal involvement (D>cN).27 Therefore, PPG with a modified D2 dissection for GCpm is justified for tumors with serosal negativity, measurements less than or equal to cT2 cN0 (also proved to be pN0) or, if node-positive, the positive stations should be within the first or selective second tier. Such combined analyses of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative findings are indispensable to establish indications for less invasive surgery, since surgical procedures should be decided preoperatively and intraoperatively. Under these conditions, tumors with suspicious serosal positivity and/or cT3 and/or measurements greater than or equal to cN1 are not candidates for PPG, even if they are proved to be GCpm and pN0∼pN1.

Our combined analyses reveal that, for middle-third GCpm, tumors that are serosal negative, less than or equal to cT2, and cN0 less than or equal to 2 cm in maximum diameter exhibited less than or equal to pN1 or restricted involvement in the selective second-tier nodes regardless of the histologic type. Conversely, nodal involvement beyond the selective second-tier stations was present in GCpm tumors that exceeded the above cutoff diameter. For lower-third GCpm, all tumors that were serosal negative, less than or equal to cT2, and cN0 showed less than or equal to pN1 or restricted involvement in the selective second-tier nodes. Since the 2.5-cm length of the pyloric cuff has been demonstrated to be the most desirable length in a recent comparative study,31 the distance between the pyloric ring and the distal margin of the tumor requires greater than or equal to 4.5 cm to nullify the risks of a positive resection margin. Therefore, for lower-third GCpm, larger tumors should not be treated by PPG to avoid a positive resection margin; thus, a cutoff diameter of 2 cm is realistic. Taking all of these factors together, we find that among tumors of middle- or lower-third GCpm that are serosal negative, less than or equal to cT2 cN0, and less than or equal to 2 cm in maximum diameter with the distal margin greater than or equal to 4.5 cm from the pyloric ring are rationally treated with curative intent by PPG with a modified D2 dissection. These criteria are practical since those who could enjoy the benefits of PPG (13 patients) comprised one quarter of the patients with tumors that were serosal negative and less than or equal to cT2 cN0 (53 patients), and 12% of the 107 patients with GCpm.

Based on the concept that complete clearance of lymph nodes that have a risk of metastasizing is necessary in a curative approach, one may doubt that a modified D2 dissection is really sufficient for patients with pN1 or pN2 even if they fulfill the previously mentioned cutoff criteria. In our series of patients, the possibility of residual diseases following a modified D2 dissection is unlikely, as those who fulfilled the criteria did not die of cancer, survived more than 5 years, and did not have nodal involvement in the stations beyond the selective second tier. As has been demonstrated by this study and others,15 the diagnostic accuracy cN is unreliable; thus, careful evaluation of serosal involvement, cT, and cN should be a prerequisite, and frozen-section examinations in suspicious involved nodes or sentinel nodes may sometimes be necessary. Under these strict evaluations, carefully selected GCpm patients can enjoy the benefits of PPG.

Corresponding author and reprints: Shouji Shimoyama, MD, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan (e-mail: shimoyama-dis@h.u-tokyo.ac.jp).

Accepted for publication March 23, 2003.

Shimoyama  SSeto  YYasuda  HKaminishi  M Wider indications for the local resection of gastric cancer by adjacent lymphadenectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2000;75157- 164
PubMed Link to Article
Kitamura  KYamaguchi  TTaniguchi  HHagiwara  ASawai  KTakahashi  T Analysis of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: rationale of limited surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1997;6442- 47
PubMed Link to Article
Yokota  TSaito  TTeshima  SKikuchi  SKunii  YYamauchi  H Lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: how can surgeons perform limited surgery? Int Surg. 1998;83287- 290
PubMed
Tsujitani  SOka  SSaito  H  et al.  Less invasive surgery for early gastric cancer based on the low probability of lymph node metastasis. Surgery. 1999;125148- 154
PubMed Link to Article
Shimoyama  SJoujima  YYasuda  HOohara  TKaminishi  M Prospectively performed modified D1 lymphadenectomy for clinically diagnosed mucosal, node negative gastric cancer. Int Surg. 2000;85202- 208
PubMed
Zhang  DShimoyama  SKaminishi  M Feasibility of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with a wider scope of lymphadenectomy. Arch Surg. 1998;133993- 997
PubMed Link to Article
Nishikawa  KKawahara  HYumiba  T  et al.  Functional characteristics of the pylorus in patients undergoing pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surgery. 2002;131613- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Nakane  YAkehira  KInoue  K  et al.  Postoperative evaluation of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;47590- 595
PubMed
Imada  TRino  YTakahashi  M  et al.  Postoperative functinal evaluation of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer compared with conventional distal gastrectomy. Surgery. 1998;123165- 170
PubMed Link to Article
Nakabayashi  TMochiki  EGarcia  M  et al.  Pyloric motility after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with or without the pyloric branch of the vagus nerve. World J Surg. 2002;26577- 583
PubMed Link to Article
Ramacciato  GAurello  PD'Angelo  FCicchini  CSternberg  CN Does extended lymphadenectomy influence prognosis of gastric carcinoma after curative resection? Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;471470- 1474
PubMed
Jähne  JPiso  PMeyer  H-J 1114 total gastrectomies in the surgical treatment of primary gastric adenocarcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2001;481222- 1226
PubMed
Roukos  DH Extended lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer: when, for whom and why. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1998;8016- 24
PubMed
Siewert  JRBöttcher  KStein  HJRoder  JDGerman Gastric Carcinoma Study Group, Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;228449- 461
PubMed Link to Article
Kasakura  YMochizuki  FWakabayashi  KKochi  MFujii  MTakayama  T An evaluation of the effectiveness of extended lymph node dissection in patients with gastric cancer. J Surg Res. 2002;103252- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Yildirim  EÇelen  OBerberoglu  U The Turkish experience with curative gastrectomies for gastric carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;19225- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Roukos  DHLorenz  MKarakostas  KParaschou  PBatsis  CKappas  AM Pathological serosa and node-based classification accurately predicts gastric cancer recurrence risk and outcome, and determines portential and limitation of a Japanese-style extensive surgery for Western patients. Br J Cancer. 2001;841602- 1609
PubMed Link to Article
Hayes  NNg  EKWRaimes  SA  et al.  Total gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for "curable" stomach cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;18827- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Bonenkamp  JJHermans  JSasako  Mvan de Velde  CJH Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340908- 914
PubMed Link to Article
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. Gastric Cancer. 1998;110- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Shimoyama  SKaminishi  MJoujima  YOohara  THamada  CTeshigawara  W Lymph node involvement correlation with survival in advanced gastric carcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses. J Surg Oncol. 1994;57164- 170
PubMed Link to Article
Beahrs  OHHenson  DEHutter  RVPMyers  MHAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer, Manual for Staging of Cancer. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa J. B. Lippincott1988;
Kaminishi  MShimoyama  SYamaguchi  H  et al.  Results of subtotal gastrectomy with complete dissection of the N2 lymph nodes preserving the spleen and pancreas in surgery for gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 1994;41384- 387
PubMed
Nakajima  T Analyses of 10 000 cases of gastric cancer in Cancer Institute Hospital. Jpn J Cancer Chemother. 1994;211813- 1897
Maehara  YOshiro  TEndo  K  et al.  Clinical significance of occult micrometastasis in lymph nodes from patients with early gastric cancer who died of recurrence. Surgery. 1996;119397- 401
PubMed Link to Article
Morgagni  PSaragoni  LFolli  S  et al.  Lymph node metastases in patients with early gastric cancer: experience with 139 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8170- 174
PubMed Link to Article
Siewert  JRKestlmeier  RBusch  R  et al.  Benefit of D2 lymph node dissection for patients with gastric cancer and pN0 and pN1 lymph node metastasis. Br J Surg. 1996;831144- 1147
PubMed Link to Article
Cai  JIkeguchi  MMaeta  MKaibara  N Micrometastasis in lymph nodes and microinvasion of the muscularis propria in primary lesions of submucosal gastric cancer. Surgery. 2000;12732- 39
PubMed Link to Article
Choi  H-JKim  Y-KKim  Y-HKim  S-SHong  S-H Occurrence and prognostic implications of micrometastases in lymph nodes from patients with submucosal gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;913- 19
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  EChae  YKim  IChoi  JYeom  BLeong  AS-Y Prognostic relevance of immunohistochemically detected lymph node micrometastasis in patients with gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;942867- 2873
PubMed Link to Article
Nakane  YMichiura  TInoue  KSato  MNakai  KYamamichi  K Length of the antral segment in pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89220- 224
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Definitions of First-, Second-, and Third-Tier and Distant Nodes, Each Node Station, and the Assigned Station Number According to the JRSGC*20
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Patient Distribution of Each Clinicopathologic Parameter in Each Cancer Location*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Node-Negative and -Positive Patient Distributions in Relationship to Clinicopathologic Factors*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Distributions of Patients With Node-Negative, First-Tier Node-Positive, and Greater Than or Equal to Second-Tier Node-Negative Tumors in Relationship to Clinicopathologic Classification, Histologic Type, and Maximum Cancer Diameter*

References

Shimoyama  SSeto  YYasuda  HKaminishi  M Wider indications for the local resection of gastric cancer by adjacent lymphadenectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2000;75157- 164
PubMed Link to Article
Kitamura  KYamaguchi  TTaniguchi  HHagiwara  ASawai  KTakahashi  T Analysis of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: rationale of limited surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1997;6442- 47
PubMed Link to Article
Yokota  TSaito  TTeshima  SKikuchi  SKunii  YYamauchi  H Lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: how can surgeons perform limited surgery? Int Surg. 1998;83287- 290
PubMed
Tsujitani  SOka  SSaito  H  et al.  Less invasive surgery for early gastric cancer based on the low probability of lymph node metastasis. Surgery. 1999;125148- 154
PubMed Link to Article
Shimoyama  SJoujima  YYasuda  HOohara  TKaminishi  M Prospectively performed modified D1 lymphadenectomy for clinically diagnosed mucosal, node negative gastric cancer. Int Surg. 2000;85202- 208
PubMed
Zhang  DShimoyama  SKaminishi  M Feasibility of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with a wider scope of lymphadenectomy. Arch Surg. 1998;133993- 997
PubMed Link to Article
Nishikawa  KKawahara  HYumiba  T  et al.  Functional characteristics of the pylorus in patients undergoing pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surgery. 2002;131613- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Nakane  YAkehira  KInoue  K  et al.  Postoperative evaluation of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;47590- 595
PubMed
Imada  TRino  YTakahashi  M  et al.  Postoperative functinal evaluation of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer compared with conventional distal gastrectomy. Surgery. 1998;123165- 170
PubMed Link to Article
Nakabayashi  TMochiki  EGarcia  M  et al.  Pyloric motility after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with or without the pyloric branch of the vagus nerve. World J Surg. 2002;26577- 583
PubMed Link to Article
Ramacciato  GAurello  PD'Angelo  FCicchini  CSternberg  CN Does extended lymphadenectomy influence prognosis of gastric carcinoma after curative resection? Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;471470- 1474
PubMed
Jähne  JPiso  PMeyer  H-J 1114 total gastrectomies in the surgical treatment of primary gastric adenocarcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2001;481222- 1226
PubMed
Roukos  DH Extended lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer: when, for whom and why. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1998;8016- 24
PubMed
Siewert  JRBöttcher  KStein  HJRoder  JDGerman Gastric Carcinoma Study Group, Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;228449- 461
PubMed Link to Article
Kasakura  YMochizuki  FWakabayashi  KKochi  MFujii  MTakayama  T An evaluation of the effectiveness of extended lymph node dissection in patients with gastric cancer. J Surg Res. 2002;103252- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Yildirim  EÇelen  OBerberoglu  U The Turkish experience with curative gastrectomies for gastric carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;19225- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Roukos  DHLorenz  MKarakostas  KParaschou  PBatsis  CKappas  AM Pathological serosa and node-based classification accurately predicts gastric cancer recurrence risk and outcome, and determines portential and limitation of a Japanese-style extensive surgery for Western patients. Br J Cancer. 2001;841602- 1609
PubMed Link to Article
Hayes  NNg  EKWRaimes  SA  et al.  Total gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for "curable" stomach cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;18827- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Bonenkamp  JJHermans  JSasako  Mvan de Velde  CJH Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340908- 914
PubMed Link to Article
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. Gastric Cancer. 1998;110- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Shimoyama  SKaminishi  MJoujima  YOohara  THamada  CTeshigawara  W Lymph node involvement correlation with survival in advanced gastric carcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses. J Surg Oncol. 1994;57164- 170
PubMed Link to Article
Beahrs  OHHenson  DEHutter  RVPMyers  MHAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer, Manual for Staging of Cancer. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa J. B. Lippincott1988;
Kaminishi  MShimoyama  SYamaguchi  H  et al.  Results of subtotal gastrectomy with complete dissection of the N2 lymph nodes preserving the spleen and pancreas in surgery for gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 1994;41384- 387
PubMed
Nakajima  T Analyses of 10 000 cases of gastric cancer in Cancer Institute Hospital. Jpn J Cancer Chemother. 1994;211813- 1897
Maehara  YOshiro  TEndo  K  et al.  Clinical significance of occult micrometastasis in lymph nodes from patients with early gastric cancer who died of recurrence. Surgery. 1996;119397- 401
PubMed Link to Article
Morgagni  PSaragoni  LFolli  S  et al.  Lymph node metastases in patients with early gastric cancer: experience with 139 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8170- 174
PubMed Link to Article
Siewert  JRKestlmeier  RBusch  R  et al.  Benefit of D2 lymph node dissection for patients with gastric cancer and pN0 and pN1 lymph node metastasis. Br J Surg. 1996;831144- 1147
PubMed Link to Article
Cai  JIkeguchi  MMaeta  MKaibara  N Micrometastasis in lymph nodes and microinvasion of the muscularis propria in primary lesions of submucosal gastric cancer. Surgery. 2000;12732- 39
PubMed Link to Article
Choi  H-JKim  Y-KKim  Y-HKim  S-SHong  S-H Occurrence and prognostic implications of micrometastases in lymph nodes from patients with submucosal gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;913- 19
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  EChae  YKim  IChoi  JYeom  BLeong  AS-Y Prognostic relevance of immunohistochemically detected lymph node micrometastasis in patients with gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;942867- 2873
PubMed Link to Article
Nakane  YMichiura  TInoue  KSato  MNakai  KYamamichi  K Length of the antral segment in pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89220- 224
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 11

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Case 2