The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) started a new nationwide gastric cancer registry in 2008. Approximately 50 data items, including surgical procedures, pathological diagnoses, and survival outcomes, for 12004 patients with primary gastric cancer treated in 2001 were collected retrospectively from 187 participating hospitals. Data were entered into the JGCA database according to the JGCA Classification of gastric carcinoma, 13th edition and the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of malignant tumors, 5th edition by using an electronic data collecting system. Finally, data of 11261 patients with gastric resection were analyzed. The 5-year follow-up rate was 83.5%. The direct death rate was 0.6%. TNM 5-year survival rates (5YSRs)/JGCA 5YSRs were 91.8/91.9% for stage IA, 84.6/85.1% for stage IB, 70.5/73.1% for stage II, 46.6/51.0% for stage IIIA, 29.9/33.4% for stage IIIB, and 16.6/15.8% for stage IV. The proportion of patients more than 80 years old was 7.0%, and their 5YSR was 48.7%. Compared to the JGCA archived data, though the follow-up rate needs to be improved, these data suggest that the postoperative results of patients with primary gastric carcinoma have improved in those with advanced disease and in the aged population in Japan.
Hinweise
All the authors belong to the Registration Committee of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.
Introduction
From 1998, the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) began conducting a nationwide gastric cancer registration project by using electronic data collecting systems. Detailed survival analyses of 8851 patients with primary gastric cancer treated in 1991 were reported in 2006 [1]. However, this nationwide registry was suspended because of several issues such as the operation of the Act Concerning Protection of Personal Information, revision of the JGCA classification for gastric cancer, and rapid changes in the information technology (IT) environment at the member hospitals. After a period of 10 years in which the program was inactive, the registration committee of the JGCA started a new registration program to collect anonymized data simply, correctly, and quickly, in 2008 [2, 3]. Based on this program, we investigated the survival outcomes of patients with primary gastric cancer treated in 2001.
Subjects, materials, and methods
In the 2008 JGCA nationwide registration program, approximately 50 data items, including surgical procedures, pathological diagnoses, and prognoses, for patients with primary gastric carcinoma surgically treated in 2001 were collected retrospectively in 2008 by using custom-made software. This software could be downloaded from the JGCA website. The JGCA member hospitals could participate in this project voluntarily.
Anzeige
The registration data of this system are listed in Table 1. Definition and documentation of the items were based on the Japanese (JGCA) Classification of gastric carcinoma, 13th edition [4, 5] and the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of malignant tumors, 5th edition [6]. These two classifications were not compatible with each other and items could not be converted automatically. The JGCA T-category was identical to the TNM classification. On the other hand, in the JGCA classification, peritoneal metastasis and liver metastasis were individually recorded as P- and H-categories, both of which could be translated into the M-category in the TNM classification. Intraoperative peritoneal washing cytology (CY) was an independent category in the JGCA classification. The JGCA N-category was defined by the anatomical extension of lymph node metastasis in association with the location of the primary tumor, while the TNM N-category was defined by number of metastatic regional lymph nodes. Items that are compatible in the JGCA classification and the TNM classification, and items that are not compatible are listed in Table 2 for convenience.
Table 1
Registration data
Category
Item
Personal information
Name of hospital, serial no., case no., ID no.a, age, sex
Follow-up
Date of follow-up, survival situation, causes of death
Surgery
Date of operation, approach, operative procedure, LN dissection (D), organs resected together with stomach, type of reconstruction
Pathology
Anatomical subsite, macroscopic type, size of tumor, histological type, depth of tumor invasion, ly, v, number of dissected LNs, number of metastatic LNs, N, PM/DM, CY
JGCA final diagnosis
Depth of tumor invasion, adjacent structure involved, fN, H, P, M, curability, stage
UICC TNM categories
T, N, M, stage
LN lymph node, ly lymphatic invasion, v venous invasion, N extent of LN metastasis (JGCA), PM/DM involvement of proximal and distal margin, CY peritoneal cytology, fN extent of LN metastasis (final diagnosis), H liver metastasis, P peritoneal metastasis, M distant metastasis, JGCA Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, UICC International Union Against Cancer
aID no. was not exported to the registration data set
Table 2
Compatibility to convert JGCA classification to TNM classification
Category
JGCA 13th ed.
TNM 5th ed.
Compatibility
T
1–4
0–4
Compatible
N
0
0
Identical
1–3
1–3
Incompatible
Ma
0
0
Compatible
1
1
Compatible
H
0
None
1
M1
Compatible
P
0
None
1
M1
Compatible
CY
0
None
1
None
Stage
IA
IA
Identical
IB, II, IIIA, IIIB, IV
IB, II, IIIA, IIIB, IV
Incompatible
Lymphatic invasion
ly0
L0
Identical
ly1–3
L1
Compatible
Venous invasion
v0
v0
Identical
v1–3
v1
Compatible
None
v2
Histological typing
Differentiated type
G1–2
Compatible
Undifferentiated type
G3–4
Compatible
Residual tumor
Resection A–C
R0–2
Incompatible
aJGCA M-category is defined as distant metastases other than peritoneal, liver, or cytological metastases
After the patients’ data were entered with the data entry software, the patients’ names and other personal information were removed from the exporting data set for privacy protection. A compact disk containing the linkable anonymous data was then mailed to the JGCA data center, located at Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital. The accumulated data of the patients were reviewed and analyzed by the JGCA registration committee. One- to 5-year survival rates (5YSRs) were calculated for various subsets of prognostic factors by the Kaplan–Meier method. Deaths of any cause observed during 5 postoperative years were counted as events in the survival analysis. SPSS Ver. 15 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analyses. This nationwide registration program was approved by the ethics committee of the JGCA.
Results
The data were collected from 187 participating hospitals across the country. The geographical distribution of the registered patients among Japan’s 47 prefectures is illustrated in Fig. 1. More than 1000 patients per year were registered in the prefectures of Tokyo and Osaka; on the other hand, the number of registered patients was less than 100 in 15 prefectures. The hospital volumes in the participating hospitals are indicated in Fig. 2. The median hospital volume was 66 patients per year.
Fig. 1
Geographical distribution of the registered patients
Fig. 2
Hospital volumes in the 187 participating hospitals
×
×
Data of 13067 patients who had undergone surgery in 2001 for primary gastric tumors were eventually accumulated. Of these, 88 patients with benign tumor or non-epithelial tumor were excluded from the analysis. Ninety-four patients who received endoscopic mucosal resection were also excluded. Data of 881 patients lacked essential items. Consequently, data of the remaining 12004 patients were used for the final analysis.
Anzeige
The results are shown in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28; data in these Tables are for the total number of patients, survival rates by year, standard error of 5YSR, direct death within 30 postoperative days, numbers lost to follow-up within 5 years, 5-year survivors, and main causes of death (such as local and/or lymph node metastasis, peritoneal metastasis, liver metastasis, distant metastasis, recurrence at unknown site, other cancer and other disease). Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 show cumulative survival curves of patients stratified by essential categories.
Table 3
Survival outcomes of primary cancer
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Primary cancer
12004
86.4
78.7
74.1
71.1
69.1
0.4
95
1976
6588
309
1266
374
183
349
162
530
267
SE standard error, 5YSR 5-year survival rate, DD direct death, Lost to follow up lost to follow-up within 5 years, Alive 5-year survivors, L local recurrence and/or lymph node metastasis, P peritoneal metastasis, H liver metastasis, M distant metastasis, R recurrence at unknown site, OC other cancer, OD other disease, UK unknown
Table 4
Survival outcomes of resected cases and unresected cases
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Resected cases
11261
88.6
80.9
76.2
73.0
70.9
0.4
63
1877
6354
267
1040
357
161
298
155
501
251
Unresected cases
350
23.0
9.8
7.1
5.6
5.3
1.3
20
40
14
32
176
12
13
43
0
10
10
Table 5
Survival outcomes by sex
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Male
7828
88.4
80.7
75.6
72.3
70.0
0.5
47
1314
4348
190
646
299
112
205
138
403
173
Female
3419
88.9
81.1
77.5
74.6
73.0
0.8
16
562
1997
76
392
58
49
93
17
97
78
Table 6
Survival outcomes by age
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
<40
257
89.9
82.0
80.3
79.4
78.4
2.7
0
40
165
3
30
2
8
4
1
0
4
40–59
3232
92.5
86.6
83.1
80.6
79.3
0.7
12
516
2095
60
274
58
48
66
13
54
48
60–79
6924
87.9
80.1
74.9
71.6
69.2
0.6
37
1129
3818
186
651
259
91
182
135
322
151
≧80
788
78.5
64.3
58.6
53.1
48.7
2.0
14
178
256
18
84
35
13
29
6
123
46
Table 7
Survival outcomes by tumor location
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
U
2399
86.0
76.7
71.3
67.5
65.3
1.0
13
370
1258
69
237
107
49
75
32
134
68
M
4351
92.2
87.1
83.3
80.8
78.9
0.6
23
760
2741
65
260
90
43
84
65
161
82
L
3936
89.4
81.4
77.1
74.2
71.9
0.7
21
685
2230
108
309
141
52
99
55
176
81
Whole
532
63.7
44.7
33.7
25.8
23.4
2.0
6
56
104
23
230
17
17
34
3
28
20
U upper third, M middle third, L lower third of stomach
p pathological finding, M mucosa or muscuralis musoca, SM submucosa, MP muscularis propria, SS subserosal, SE serosa, SI adjacent structures
Table 14
Survival outcomes by pT classification
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
pT1
5733
97.8
96.0
94.1
92.3
90.8
0.4
11
1106
4146
18
20
23
12
23
104
207
74
pT2
2766
89.5
80.1
74.0
70.1
67.5
0.9
20
445
1492
80
171
153
67
87
37
167
67
pT3
2278
69.7
50.9
41.3
35.8
33.0
1.0
26
264
601
132
712
140
72
148
10
102
97
pT4
417
57.7
38.1
30.0
26.0
22.8
2.2
5
45
77
36
134
39
8
40
4
24
10
Table 15
Survival outcomes by lymph node metastasis (pN)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
pN0
6508
97.0
94.7
92.5
90.6
89.0
0.4
22
1240
4616
18
95
38
16
44
109
248
84
pN1
2274
84.7
72.3
66.2
61.3
58.3
1.1
12
322
1074
78
309
139
46
99
23
118
66
pN2
1703
72.1
52.8
41.4
35.8
33.4
1.2
19
224
439
103
442
135
69
109
13
100
69
pN3
421
53.8
33.1
25.8
22.0
17.4
1.9
4
33
61
60
136
37
28
35
3
13
15
Table 16
Survival outcomes by liver metastasis (fH)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
fH0
10665
89.9
82.6
78.1
74.9
72.7
0.5
55
1806
6171
249
956
216
143
268
144
482
230
fH1
305
42.6
24.6
15.3
12.2
11.8
2.0
7
28
28
8
48
130
15
25
5
10
8
f final finding
Table 17
Survival outcomes by peritoneal metastasis (fP)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
fP0
10301
91.2
84.5
80.0
76.9
74.8
0.4
49
1771
6131
232
628
322
143
245
148
468
213
fP1
658
49.0
27.0
19.3
14.7
12.4
1.4
11
64
66
24
363
30
15
49
1
21
25
Table 18
Survival outcomes by peritoneal cytology (CY)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
CY0
4109
88.6
78.9
73.0
68.9
66.4
0.8
24
671
2157
135
403
184
82
120
56
185
116
CY1
651
51.6
29.1
18.2
14.9
12.3
1.4
4
73
60
23
338
35
15
62
4
25
16
Table 19
Survival outcomes by distant metastasis (fM)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
fM0
10752
89.4
82.0
77.3
74.2
72.1
0.5
59
1817
6159
233
932
331
140
278
149
479
234
fM1
215
46.7
27.3
23.6
19.7
18.0
2.8
3
21
30
25
72
15
16
16
2
14
4
Table 20
Survival outcomes by JGCA stage
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Stage IA
4997
98.2
96.7
94.9
93.2
91.9
0.4
11
983
3646
6
11
8
3
14
87
181
58
Stage IB
1459
96.4
93.0
90.1
87.4
85.1
1.0
7
267
993
9
28
13
11
15
28
78
17
Stage II
1237
93.0
85.0
79.7
75.7
73.1
1.3
7
196
736
26
70
44
24
38
14
65
24
Stage IIIA
975
85.8
71.2
61.2
55.2
51.0
1.7
9
143
395
47
137
50
32
53
6
61
51
Stage IIIB
562
76.6
55.3
43.9
36.0
33.4
2.1
5
63
153
48
141
31
24
40
2
36
24
Stage IV
1649
53.9
32.2
22.4
18.3
15.8
1.0
22
161
206
122
626
199
62
135
11
71
56
Table 21
Survival outcomes by JGCA stage (4 classifications)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Stage I
6456
97.8
95.8
93.8
91.9
90.3
0.4
18
1250
4639
15
39
21
14
29
115
259
75
Stage II
1237
93.0
85.0
79.7
75.7
73.1
1.3
7
196
736
26
70
44
24
38
14
65
24
Stage III
1537
82.4
65.4
54.9
48.2
44.5
1.3
14
206
548
95
278
81
56
93
8
97
75
Stage IV
1649
53.9
32.2
22.4
18.3
15.8
1.0
22
161
206
122
626
199
62
135
11
71
56
Table 22
Survival outcomes by TNM stage
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Stage IA
4795
98.2
96.7
94.8
93.1
91.8
0.4
11
951
3489
6
11
9
3
13
81
175
57
Stage IB
1495
95.9
92.5
89.4
86.9
84.6
1.0
7
290
995
11
29
19
8
19
28
77
19
Stage II
1333
92.1
84.2
77.4
72.9
70.5
1.3
10
201
769
34
92
45
28
47
13
77
27
Stage IIIA
874
83.6
67.3
57.6
51.6
46.6
1.8
7
134
318
51
138
58
21
49
9
51
45
Stage IIIB
352
76.2
51.4
38.6
32.3
29.9
2.6
3
39
85
35
101
20
14
20
1
21
16
Stage IV
1638
55.3
33.2
23.9
19.0
16.6
1.0
21
157
219
120
605
186
79
128
11
68
65
Table 23
Survival outcomes by TNM stage (4 classifications)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Stage I
6290
97.7
95.7
93.5
91.7
90.1
0.4
18
1241
4484
17
40
28
11
32
109
252
76
Stage II
1333
92.1
84.2
77.4
72.9
70.5
1.3
10
201
769
34
92
45
28
47
13
77
27
Stage III
1226
81.4
62.7
52.1
46.0
41.8
1.5
10
173
403
86
239
78
35
69
10
72
61
Stage IV
1638
55.3
33.2
23.9
19.0
16.6
1.0
21
157
219
120
605
186
79
128
11
68
65
Table 24
Survival outcomes by approaches
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Laparotomy
10532
88.3
80.4
75.6
72.4
70.2
0.5
59
1757
5869
251
1002
345
154
289
147
487
231
Thoraco-laparotomy
112
70.5
56.0
47.6
43.7
40.7
4.7
3
8
39
14
19
11
6
7
0
4
4
Laparoscopic
396
99.2
98.9
98.6
97.7
97.4
0.9
0
87
300
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
Others
2
100.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
35.4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Table 25
Survival outcomes by operative procedures
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Distal gastrectomy
6684
91.6
85.5
81.6
79.1
77.2
0.5
33
1173
4096
133
412
191
75
129
90
267
118
Total gastrectomy
3377
80.0
67.5
60.6
56.1
53.7
0.9
25
512
1427
124
612
154
75
155
32
179
107
Proximal gastrectomy
446
95.2
90.0
88.3
84.3
82.3
1.9
1
60
312
4
9
6
11
6
9
21
8
Pylorus-preserving
277
96.7
95.2
94.4
92.0
90.4
1.8
2
32
220
1
2
3
0
2
5
6
6
Local excision/segmental resection
339
95.1
94.1
89.1
84.9
82.7
2.2
2
69
218
4
4
2
0
5
10
20
7
Mucosal resection
138
94.4
89.5
84.3
80.8
78.0
3.8
0
31
81
1
1
1
0
1
9
8
5
Table 26
Survival outcomes by lymph node dissection (D)
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
D0
812
79.1
72.7
69.2
65.1
63.7
1.8
8
153
394
17
85
25
4
30
28
52
24
D1
2371
85.1
76.9
72.9
70.4
68.3
1.0
19
340
1326
48
236
83
31
74
46
137
50
D1+α
1368
91.3
85.8
82.2
79.6
77.5
1.2
5
292
799
26
69
40
15
28
17
68
14
D1+β
605
94.8
90.7
87.2
84.9
83.5
1.6
2
122
391
5
25
10
5
6
5
26
10
D2
5403
90.7
82.8
77.5
74.0
71.8
0.6
28
840
3147
134
523
166
81
142
53
183
134
D3
391
78.9
62.7
54.6
50.5
46.8
2.6
0
30
161
30
82
23
18
15
2
20
10
α, Lymph node No. 7 irrespective of the location of lesions, and additionally No. 8a in patients with lesions located in the lower third of the stomach; β, Lymph nodes No. 7, 8a, 9
Table 27
Survival outcomes by involvement of the resection margins
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
PM− and DM−
10550
89.5
82.3
77.7
74.6
72.5
0.5
56
1784
6086
232
881
338
136
258
143
466
226
PM+ and/or DM+
332
58.5
39.4
32.2
24.5
22.3
2.4
6
34
59
22
119
12
19
31
5
20
11
PM proximal margin, DM distal margin
Table 28
Survival outcomes by curative potential of gastric resection
No. of patients
Postoperative survival rate (%)
SE of 5YSR
DD
Lost to follow up
Alive
Main cause of death
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year
L
P
H
M
R
OC
OD
UK
Resection A
7038
97.5
94.9
92.5
90.4
88.7
0.4
20
1309
5006
41
72
52
31
49
108
271
99
Resection B
2593
85.0
70.7
62.1
56.3
53.1
1.0
20
364
1108
121
380
151
72
119
31
157
90
Resection C
1420
50.3
28.7
19.7
15.5
13.4
1.0
22
145
145
98
567
152
55
128
10
65
55
Resection A, no residual disease with high probability of cure satisfying all of the following conditions: T1 or T2; N0 treated by D1, 2, 3 resection or N1 treated by D2, 3 resection; M0, P0, H0, CY0, and proximal and distal margins >10 mm; Resection B, no residual disease but not fulfilling criteria for “Resection A”; Resection C, definite residual disease
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier survival for all 12004 patients with primary gastric cancer. 5YSR 5-year survival rate
Fig. 4
Kaplan–Meier survival for resected cases and unresected cases
Fig. 5
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by sex
Fig. 6
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by age
Fig. 7
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by tumor location. W whole stomach, M middle third, L lower third, U upper third of stomach
Fig. 8
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by macroscopic type
Fig. 9
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by depth of tumor invasion. M mucosa or muscuralis mucosa, SM submucosa, MP muscularis propria, SS subserosal, SE serosa, SI adjacent structures
Fig. 10
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by pT classification
Fig. 11
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by lymph node metastasis
Fig. 12
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) stage
Fig. 13
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by TNM stage
Fig. 14
Kaplan–Meier survival of the resected cases stratified by curative potential of gastric resection. Resection A, no residual disease with high probability of cure satisfying all of the following conditions: T1 or T2; N0 treated by D1, 2, 3 resection or N1 treated by D2, 3 resection; M0, P0, H0, CY0, and proximal and distal margins >10 mm; Resection B, no residual disease but not fulfilling criteria for “Resection A”; Resection C, definite residual disease
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
The 5YSR in the 12004 patients with primary gastric cancer was 69.1% (Table 3; Fig. 3). Within 5 postoperative years, 1976 patients were lost to follow-up; the follow-up rate was 83.5%. Of the 12004 patients, 11261 underwent gastric resection; 350 were unresected; and in 393 the type of surgery was not specified. Accordingly, the resection rate was 97.0% (11261/11611). Sixty-three of the 11261 patients who had undergone gastrectomy died within 30 postoperative days; the direct death rate was 0.6% (Table 4; Fig. 4).
The most frequent cause of death in patients who had received gastrectomy was peritoneal metastasis (n = 1040), followed, in descending order, by other diseases (n = 501), liver metastasis (n = 357), recurrence at an unknown site (n = 298), and local recurrence including node metastasis (n = 267).
The proportion of male patients was 69.6% and their 5YSR was lower than that of female patients (P < 0.01; Table 5; Fig. 5). The proportion of patients who were more than 80 years old was 7.0%, and their 5YSR was 48.7% (Table 6; Fig. 6). Upper-third gastric cancer accounted for 21.4% of the cases, and the 5YSR (65.3%) of patients with cancer at this site was lower than that for the middle- and lower-third cancers (P < 0.001; Table 7; Fig. 7). The proportion of patients with type 4 cancer was 7.0%, and their 5YSR was markedly low, at 20.4% (P < 0.001; Table 8; Fig. 8). In regard to the histological type, the 5YSR of patients with undifferentiated type, including poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet-ring cell carcinoma, and mucinous adenocarcinoma, was 64.6%. The undifferentiated type showed a poorer prognosis than the differentiated type (P < 0.001; Tables 9, 10). The grade of venous invasion (v0–v3) and that of lymphatic invasion (ly0–ly3) showed significant correlations with prognosis (P < 0.001; Tables 11, 12).
There was a high incidence of early-stage cancer, as indicated in Tables 13 and 14 and Figs. 9 and 10. The proportion of pathological T1 (pT1; mucosal or submucosal) cancer was 51.2%. The 5YSR of this population was 90.8%, and the primary cause of death was not cancer recurrence (n = 96), but other diseases (n = 207).
Peritoneal washing cytology (CY) was carried out for 3481 of 5857 patients with T2, T3, and T4 cancer (59.4%). The 5YSR of cytology-positive patients (CY1) was 12.3%, which corresponded with that of the patients with peritoneal metastasis (P1) (Tables 17, 18).
The 5YSRs of the patients stratified by the JGCA staging system were 91.9% for stage IA, 85.1% for stage IB, 73.1% for stage II, 51.0% for stage IIIA, 33.4% for stage IIIB, and 15.8% for stage IV. These JGCA 5YSRs seemed to correlate well with the TNM 5YSRs (Tables 20, 21, 22, 23; Figs. 12, 13).
In regard to the operative procedure, the proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy was 3.6%, and their 5YSR was 97.4%. Laparoscopic surgery was carried out mainly in patients with early gastric cancer. Only 1.0% of the patients were treated by thoraco-laparotomy, and their 5YSR was 40.7%. Thoraco-laparotomy was carried out in patients with gastric cardia cancer invading the esophagus (Table 24). Thirty percent of the patients underwent total gastrectomy, and their 5YSR was 53.7%. The proportion of patients treated by modified surgery such as proximal gastrectomy, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy, segmental gastrectomy, and local resection was 9.4% (Table 25). D0, D1, D1+α, and D1+β dissections were carried out in 7.4, 21.7, 12.5, and 5.5% of the patients, respectively. According to the JGCA gastric cancer treatment guidelines [7, 8], D1+α dissection with modified gastrectomy was indicated for T1(M)N0 tumors and T1(SM)N0 differentiated tumors <1.5 cm in diameter, while D1+β dissection with modified gastrectomy was indicated for T1(SM)N0 undifferentiated tumors, T1(SM)N0 differentiated tumors larger than 1.6 cm, T1(M)N1 tumors, and T1(SM)N1 tumors <2.0 cm. D0 and D1 dissections were carried out mainly in patients with non-curative factors or poor surgical risks. D2 lymph node dissection was carried out in 49.3% of the patients and the risk of direct death in those with D2 gastrectomy was 0.5% (28/5403; Table 26).
Anzeige
The curative potential of gastric resection was an important prognostic factor. The proportion of patients with a high probability of cure (resection A) was 63.7%, and their 5YSR was 88.7%. On the other hand, the proportion of patients with definite residual tumor (resection C) was 12.8%, and their 5YSR was 13.4% (Table 28; Fig. 14).
Discussion
The data presented in this report were collected from 187 hospitals in Japan. The number of new patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer in 2001 was estimated to be 107726 [9]. Accordingly, the 11261 patients registered by this program corresponded to approximately 10% of the population affected by gastric cancer in Japan. Even though these patients may not represent the average features of gastric cancer, this article is considered to be the largest report for the past 10 years clarifying the trends of gastric cancer.
The reliability of the results in this report depends on the quality of data accumulated in the JGCA database. As the algorithms of the JGCA staging system were rather complicated, the error checking system on the data entry screen did not work perfectly. In several categories, such as lymph node metastasis (N), the JGCA code could not convert to the TNM code automatically. A few “bugs” in the software were revealed just after we had analyzed thousands of data records. Therefore, the registration committee had to make great efforts to cleanse and validate the raw data sent to the data center from participating hospitals.
As compared with our archived data of 7935 patients treated in 1991 [1], though the proportions of each stage were similar, the direct death rate had significantly improved, dropping from 1.0 to 0.6% (P < 0.001); the proportion of patients aged more than 80 years old had increased, from 4.5 to 7.0% (P < 0.001); and the 5YSR of stage IV had improved, from 9.0 to 15.8% (P < 0.05). These data suggest that, in this decade, the treatment results may have improved in patients with advanced disease and in older patients.
Anzeige
However, these data were retrospectively collected, 7 years after surgery. We had legal difficulties in registering personal information, which was essential for long-term and prospective follow-up. The overall follow-up rate in our program was 83.5%, as already mentioned. A lower follow-up rate is generally considered to show misleading results of higher survival rates in patients with advanced disease. The Japanese Association of Clinical Cancer Centers (consisting of 25 cancer center hospitals) has reported that their follow-up rate was 98.5%, and the 5YSRs of 9980 patients who underwent surgery from 1997 to 2000 were 90.4% for TNM stage I, 67.8% for stage II, 43.3% for stage III, and 9.3% for stage IV [10]. On the other hand, our 5YSR in stage IV patients was 16.6% (Table 23). We might have overestimated our 5YSR in stage IV patients, but we found that the follow-up rate increased as the stage advanced; the follow-up rate of stage IV patients was 90.4% (Table 29). Of the 187 participating hospitals, 114 hospitals achieved high follow-up rates of 90% or more for stage IV patients. Therefore, the 5-year follow-up rates and 5YSRs in these 114 hospitals were calculated for reference. The mean follow-up rate for stage IV patients in these 114 selected hospitals was 97.7% and their 5YSR was 15.9% (Table 30). These data suggest that the lower follow-up rate in our program may not have serious effects on the 5YSRs. Although the correlation between follow-up rate and survival rate is complicated, we need to greatly improve our follow-up system to evaluate our survival rates more accurately.
Table 29
Five-year follow-up rates stratified by TNM stage
No. of patients
Lost to follow up
FUR (%)
Stage I
6290
1241
80.3
Stage II
1333
201
84.9
Stage III
1226
173
85.9
Stage IV
1638
157
90.4
Total
10487
1772
83.1
FUR 5-year follow-up rate
Table 30
Follow-up rates and survival rates stratified by TNM stage in 187 participating hospitals and 114 selected hospitals
TNM stage
187 Participating hospitals
114 Selected hospitals
No. of patients
FUR (%)
5YSR (%)
No. of patients
FUR (%)
5YSR (%)
Stage IA
4795
80.2
91.8
3401
84.0
91.3
Stage IB
1495
80.6
84.6
1000
84.2
82.5
Stage II
1333
84.9
70.5
938
89.6
70.3
Stage IIIA
874
84.7
46.6
608
93.1
45.2
Stage IIIB
352
88.9
29.9
243
93.8
30.8
Stage IV
1638
90.4
16.6
1196
97.7
15.9
The 114 hospitals were selected on the criterion of achieving high follow-up rate of 90% or more for stage IV patients
This is the first nationwide report in which the JGCA refers to peritoneal washing cytology (CY). CY was conducted in 3481 (59.4%) of 5857 patients with T2, T3, or T4 cancer. The 5YSR of CY-positive (CY1) patients was 12.3% and their 5YSR was as poor as that of patients with peritoneal metastasis (P1; 12.4%). Although CY was not carried out commonly in 2001, it was regarded as a significant and independent prognostic factor.
The JGCA restarted a nationwide registration program after an inactive period of 10 years. The most urgent priority of this program was to report detailed 5YSRs in patients who had received a gastrectomy. Therefore, the structure of the database was required to be simple and the number of registration items was kept to a minimum. We are now planning to register more items concerning remnant gastric cancer, chemotherapy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection by upgrading the data entry software. We will continue our efforts to collect qualified data annually.
Acknowledgments
The JGCA Registration Committee appreciates very much the great effort of member hospitals in registering accurate and detailed data for this project. We also wish to thank Ms. Yoshimi Sugamura, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, for her valuable assistance.
Anzeige
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.
Data of gastric cancer patients in this report were collected from the surgical or gastrointestinal departments of the following 187 hospitals (in alphabetical order).
Aichi Cancer Center Aichi Hospital, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Akashi Municipal Hospital, Aomori City Hospital, Asahikawa Medical University, Cancer Institute Hospital, Chiba Cancer Center, Chiba University Hospital, Dokkyo Medical University, Ebina General Hospital, Fuchu Hospital, Fujita Health University (Banbuntane Houtokukai Hospital), Fujita Health University Hospital, Fukui Red Cross Hospital, Fukui Saiseikai Hospital, Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Gunma Prefectural Cancer Center, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine (Department of General Surgical Science), Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine (Department of Thoracic Visceral Organ Surgery), Hachioji Digestive Disease Hospital, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamanomachi Hospital, Health Insurance Naruto Hospital, Higashiosaka City General Hospital, Himeji Central Hospital, Hirakata City Hospital, Hiroshima City Hospital, Hiroshima Prefectural Hospital, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hitachi General Hospital, Hoshigaoka Koseinenkin Hospital, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo Prefectural Nishinomiya Hospital, Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital, Ibaraki Seinan Medical Center Hospital, Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Imamura Hospital, Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, Iwate Prefectural Isawa Hospital, Iwate Prefectural Kamaishi Hospital, JA Hiroshima Kouseiren Hiroshima General Hospital, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Jikei University School of Medicine (Aoto Hospital), Kagawa University Hospital, Kakogawa Municipal Hospital, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Kanazawa Medical University Hospital, Kawasaki Medical School Hospital, Kawasaki Municipal Hospital, Keio University School of Medicine, Keiyukai Sapporo Hospital, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kinki Central Hospital, Kinki University School of Medicine (Nara Hospital), Kiryu Kosei General Hospital, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, Kitasato Institutional Hospital, Kitasato University East Hospital, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe University Hospital, Koga General Hospital, Kokura Memorial Hospital, Kouchi Medical School Hospital, Kumamoto Regional Medical Center, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurobe City Hospital, Kushiro Rosai Hospital, Kyorin University Hospital, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural Yosanoumi Hospital, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyushu University Hospital, Matsue City Hospital, Matsushita Memorial Hospital, Matsuyama Shimin Hospital, Minami Tohoku Hospital, Misawa City Hospital, Mitoyo General Hospital, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, Miyagi Cancer Center, Muroran General Hospital, Musashino Red Cross Hospital, Nagahama City Hospital, Nagano Municipal Hospital, Nagaoka Chuo General Hospital, Nagoya City University Hospital, Nagoya University Hospital, Nanpuh Hospital, Nara Medical University Hospital, Narita Red Cross Hospital, National Defense Medical College, National Kyushu Cancer Center, NHO Ciba Medical Center, NHO Ibusuki Hospital, NHO Kasumigaura Medical Center, NHO Kobe Medical Center, NHO Nagasaki Medical Center, NHO Osaka Medical Center, NHO Sendai Medical Center, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, NHO Tokyo Medical Center, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata Prefectural Shibata Hospital, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Nippon Medical School Chiba Hokusoh Hospital, Nippon Medical School Musashikosugi Hospital, Nippon Medical School, NTT West Osaka Hospital, Obihiro Tokushukai Hospital, Oita Red Cross Hospital, Oita University Hospital, Okayama Saiseikai General Hospital, Okayama University Hospital, Okitama Public General Hospital, Onomichi Municipal Hospital, Osaka City University Hospital, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka Kouseinenkin Hospital, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, Otsu Municipal Hospital, Otsu Red Cross Hospital, Ryukyu University School of Medicine, Saga University Hospital, Sagamihara Kyodo Hospital, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Saiseikai Maebashi Hospital, Saiseikai Niigata Daini Hospital, Saiseikai Noe Hospital, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Red Cross Hospital, Saitama Social Insurance Hospital, Sakai Municipal Hospital, Saku Central Hospital, Sapporo Social Insurance General Hospital, Sayama Hospital, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Self-defense Forces Central Hospital, Sendai Open Hospital, Sendai Red Cross Hospital, Shiga Medical Center for Adults, Shiga University of Medical Science, Showa General Hospital, Showa University Toyosu Hospital, Social Insurance Central General Hospital, Social Insurance Kinan Hospital, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Suita Municipal Hospital, Surugadai Nihon University Hospital, Tochigi Cancer Center, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tokushima Municipal Hospital, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokyo Dental College Ichikawa General Hospital, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital, Tokyo Women’s Medical University (Institute of Gastroenterology), Tokyo Women’s Medical University Hospital (Department of Surgery 2), Tokyo Women’s Medical University Medical Center East, Tonami General Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Tottori University Hospital, Toyama University Hospital, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Tsuruoka Municipal Shonai Hospital, University of Fukui Hospital, University of Miyazaki Hospital, University of Tokyo Hospital, University of Yamanashi Hospital, Wakayama Medical University, Yamagata Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamagata Prefectural Kahoku Hospital, Yamagata University Hospital, Yamaguchi Rousai Hospital, Yamanashi Prefectural Central Hospital, Yao Municipal Hospital, Yodogawa Christian Hospital, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yuai Memorial Hospital.
Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.
Sie sei „ethisch geboten“, meint Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach: mehr Transparenz über die Qualität von Klinikbehandlungen. Um sie abzubilden, lässt er gegen den Widerstand vieler Länder einen virtuellen Klinik-Atlas freischalten.
Eine Studie zum Nutzen der druckentlastenden Kraniektomie nach schwerer tiefer supratentorieller Hirnblutung deutet einen Nutzen der Operation an. Für überlebende Patienten ist das dennoch nur eine bedingt gute Nachricht.
Gesundheitsminister Lauterbach hat die vom Bundeskabinett beschlossene Klinikreform verteidigt. Kritik an den Plänen kommt vom Marburger Bund. Und in den Ländern wird über den Gang zum Vermittlungsausschuss spekuliert.
Update Chirurgie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletterund bleiben Sie gut informiert.
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
