• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.159-166
• /
• 2009

Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy and prognostic predictability of the $7^{th}$ UICC TNM classification compared to $6^{th}$ UICC TNM classification in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: Between June 1992 and December 2006, 1,633 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone gastric surgery and who had been analyzed by the $6^{th}$ UICC method were analyzed using the new $7^{th}$ UICC system. Results: Significant differences in 5-year survival rates were observed for $7^{th}$ UICC N0, N1, N2, N3a, and N3b compared to $6^{th}$ UICC. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival rates between T2 and T3. Distinct survival differences were present between stage III (IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc) and stage IV in $7^{th}$ UICC. Significant differences in 5-year survival rates were not expected for Ia versus Ib, Ib versus IIa, and IIb versus IIIa. The survival rates for the same stages were not homogeneously differentiated by $7^{th}$ UICC except for stage IV. Conclusion: The $7^{th}$ UICC classification system is not better able to predict patient survival compared to 6th UICC in patients with gastric cancer, but is better for accurate prognosis of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.154-160
• /
• 2006

Purpose: According to the 2nd English Edition of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) in 1998, in case of distal gastric cancer, the 14v (superior mesenteric vein) lymph node (LN) is included in the N2 group. However, in Korea, a modified radical gastrectomy is performed, and a 14v LN dissection is not done as a routine procedure. Thus, we investigated the rate of metastatic 14v LNs, evaluated the necessity of dissection of the 14v LN, and searched for indications of 14v LN dissection. Materials and Methods: From April 2004 to August 2005, we enrolled the patients who were diagnosed as having advanced gastric cancer in the distal third portion of the stomach. We peformed a distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection as defined in the 2nd English edition of the JGCA classification. We calculated the positive rate of metastatic LNs of each station and analyzed the relationship between the positive rates of No.6 LNs and 14v LNs. We also compared the positive 14v LN group with the negative 14v LN group. Results: The total number of patients was 50, the mean age was 56 (range $30{\sim}80$) years, and sex ratio (Male/Female) was 1.63 : 1. In 47 (94%) cases, distal a gastrectomy with gastroduodenostomy was done, and in the remaining 3 (6%) cases, a distal gastrectomy with gastrojejunostomy was done. The most frequently metastatic LNs were nos. 3 and 6 (54%). The metastatic rate of the f4v LN was 10%, which was similar to that of LN no. 9. In the comparison of the 14v positive group with the 14v negative group, there were significant differences in the numbers of metastatic LNs (mean 25.4 vs 4.91, P<0.001) and the numbers of metastatic no. 6 LNs, (mean 6.8 vs 1.42, P<0.001), and if no. 6 LNs were metastatic, the possibility of metastasis to the 14v LN was 19.2%. In the 14v positive group, all cases were more than stage 3 by the UICC 6th edition. Conclusion: In cases of advanced cancer with metastasis to the no. 6 IN, there was a good chance of metastasis to the 14v LN. Thus, in the operative field, if the tumor is advanced to more than stage 3 by the UICC classification and the no. 6 LN is metastatic, a 14v LN dissection is necessary. However, the usefulness of a 14v LN dissection should be evaluated prospectively through an analysis of tumor recurrence and long-term survival.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.235-241
• /
• 2004

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the serum tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 in monitoring the recurrence of gastric cancer and in its preoperative assessment. Materials and Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients who underwent potentially curative surgery during period from January 1995 to December 2000 at the Department of Surgery were assessed. Serum samples were obtained preoperatively, 2 weeks after the surgery, and at 6-month intervals. The cut-off levels were established as 5 ng/ml for CEA, 36 U/ml for CA 19-9, and 4 U/ml for CA 72-4. The tumor stage was described according to the 5th edition of the Union Internationale Contra la Cancer (UICC) TNM classification in 1997. Results: The preoperative positivities were $10.5\%$ for CEA, $9.7\%$ for CA 19-9, and $12.4\%$ for CA 72-4. The serum levels of the three tumor markers decreased after curative surgery. The preoperative serum levels of the three tumor markers were significantly related to the depth of invasion, the tumor size, lymph-node metastasis, the pathologic stage, and recurrence, except that CEA was not associated with tumor size. The marker sensitivities in recurrent cases were $43.3\%$ for CEA, $\%41.8$ for CA 19-9, and $50.0\%$ for CA 72-4, and the marker specificities were $85.1\%$ for CEA, $96.8\%$ for CA 19-9, and $87.8\%$ for CA 72-4. Conclusion: The preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 are not useful for the initial diagnosis of gastric cancer because of their low positivity. However, we should consider their relationship with depth of invasion, lymph-node metastasis, tumor size, pathologic stage, and recurrence. Also, the follow-up levels of the three markers have a statistical relationship with recurrence of gastric cancer even though their sensitivities are low.