4.7 Article

Treatment and Outcome of Patients with Gastric Remnant Cancer After Resection for Peptic Ulcer Disease

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 670-676

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1425-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To study the pathology, treatment, and outcome of patients with gastric remnant cancer (GRC) after resection for peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Review of a prospective gastric cancer database identified patients with GRC after gastrectomy for PUD. Clinicopathologic and treatment-related variables were obtained. Multivariate analysis was performed for factors associated with disease-specific survival (DSS). From January 1985 to April 2010, 4402 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were treated at our institution and 105 patients (2.4%) had prior gastrectomy for PUD. Prior resections were most often Billroth II (N = 97, 92%). The median time from initial resection to development of GRC was 32 years (3-60 years), and the majority of tumors were located at the gastrointestinal anastomosis (N = 72, 69%). Median DSS was 1.3 years (0.6-2.1 years). Patients who had resection had a significantly better outcome than patients who did not have resection (median DSS 5 vs 0.35 years, P < .0001). Factors associated with DSS on multivariate analysis included advanced T-stage (HR 16.5 (CI 2.2-123.4), P = .0006) and lymph node metastasis (HR 1.1 (CI 1.0-1.2), P < .0001). Stage-specific survival following R0 resection was similar to patients with conventional gastric cancer. Patients have a lifetime risk for the development of GRC following resection for PUD. As with conventional gastric cancer, determinants of survival of patients with GRC include advanced T stage and nodal metastasis. Patients with GRC amenable to curative resection exhibit the best DSS and have stage-specific outcomes similar to patients with conventional gastric cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available