Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer 1/2019

Open Access 01.12.2019 | Research article

The optimal extent of lymph node dissection in gastroesophageal junctional cancer: retrospective case control study

verfasst von: Won Ho Han, Bang Wool Eom, Hong Man Yoon, Daniel Reim, Young-Woo Kim, Moon Soo Kim, Jong Mog Lee, Keun Won Ryu

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Recently, the incidence of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been increasing in Eastern countries. Mediastinal lymph node (MLN) metastasis rates among patients with GEJ cancer are reported to be 5–25%. However, survival benefits associated with MLN dissection in GEJ cancer has been a controversial issue, especially in Eastern countries, due to its rarity and potential morbidity.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 290 patients who underwent surgery for GEJ cancer at the National Cancer Center in Korea from June 2001 to December 2015. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between patients without MLN dissection (Group A) and patients with MLN dissection (Group B). Prognostic factors associated with the survival rate were identified in a multivariate analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine (10%) patients underwent MLN dissection (Group B). Three of 29 patients (10.3%) showed a metastatic MLN in Group B. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 79.5% in Group A and 33.9% in Group B (P < 0.001). The multivariate analysis revealed that abdominal LN dissection, pT category, and pN category were statistically significant prognostic factors. LNs were the most common site for recurrence in both groups.

Conclusion

Abdominal LN dissection and pathologic stage are the important prognostic factors for type II and III GEJ cancer rather than mediastinal lymph node dissection.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
GEJ
gastroesophageal junction
MLN
Mediastinal lymph node

Background

While gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been commonly observed in Western countries, the incidence of GEJ cancer is still rare but has been increasing in Eastern countries in recent years [1, 2]. The Siewert classification system is widely used to classify GEJ cancer according to the distance from the tumor epicenter to the GE junction [3]. However, there is a controversy regarding whether GEJ cancer should be classified as gastric or esophageal cancer [4]. The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) staging (7th edition, published in 2010) classifies Siewert type I and II as esophageal cancer and type III involving the GEJ as esophageal cancer [4]. However, the 8th edition (published in 2017) classifies Siewert type II as esophageal cancer, and Siewert type III was changed to gastric cancer [5].
Due to the vague anatomical location of GEJ cancer, the range of esophagogastric resection, the staging system, and the extent of lymph node dissection, including mediastinal lymph nodes (MLNs) for this disease entity have been controversial [3, 4]. MLN metastasis rates among patients with GE junction type II and III adenocarcinoma are reported to be 5–25% [69]. However, MLN dissection is rarely performed in Eastern countries due to the rarity of type I and its invasiveness and associated morbidity. Furthermore, whether MLN dissection has survival benefits has been a debatable issue. [6, 1013]
In this study, we investigated the optimal extent of LN dissection in GEJ cancer via the analysis of the distribution of lymph node metastasis, prognostic factors and recurrence patterns in GEJ cancer.

Methods

A total of 290 patients who were diagnosed with GEJ adenocarcinoma at the National Cancer Center in Korea between June 2001 and December 2015 and underwent curative resection were included. Multiple primary gastric cancer at initial diagnosis, recurrent gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy patients, and those with a history of preoperative chemotherapy were excluded.
Clinicopathologic factors and surgical outcomes of enrolled patients were retrospectively analyzed. Included in the analysis were the patient’s age, sex, preoperative BMI, co-morbidity represented by the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, tumor size, location, extent of LN dissection, number of harvested and metastatic LNs, differentiation, Lauren’s classification, surgical procedures, stage, postoperative complications, adjuvant chemotherapy, recurrence status and location.
The study population was classified into patients without MLN dissection (Group A) and those with MLN dissection (Group B). Siewert’s classification was based on the distance from the tumor epicenter to the GEJ measured by preoperative endoscopic examination or the pathologic report obtained after surgery [14]. The dissected LN station and status of lymph node metastasis were investigated in both groups. The LN classification was determined according to Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines. [15] Complications were classified and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [16]. The initial recurrence site was defined as the location where the first recurrence was found on postoperative CT or endoscopy. To evaluate the risk factors for the disease-free survival rate, extent of lymph node dissection, age, sex, Siewert type, tumor size, histology, proximal margin, stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the multivariate analysis.
Endoscopy and abdominopelvic CT were performed every 6 months for 5 years post-surgery, and an endoscopy was performed annually for 5 years post-surgery. Recurrence patterns were classified as locoregional, peritoneal, and hematogenous metastasis. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center (No.NCC2017–0224).
Clinical and pathological variables were analyzed using the χ2 test (or Fisher’s exact test) and Student’s t-test for normally distributed continuous data. Univariable analyses of the survival rate were conducted using the log-rank test. All variables with a univariable P-value< 0·05 were included in the multivariable analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model. Variables with a P-value < 0·05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SAS® version 9.1.3 for Windows® (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA).

Results

Patient demographics and surgical outcomes

Of the 290 total patients, 29 (10%) patients underwent MLN dissection (group B) (Table 1). The proportion of patients classified as Siewert type II was higher in group B (39.5% for Group A vs. 62.1% for Group B, p = 0.019). In Group B, the tumor size was larger (4.4 ± 2.5 for Group A vs. 5.7 ± 2.9 for Group B, p = 0.025), more invasive (pT category p = 0.035), and more commonly involved LN metastasis (pN category p = 0.006). While 12 patients (41.4%) underwent esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis) in group B, none of the group A patients underwent esophagectomy. The proximal margin was significantly longer in group B (1.9 ± 1.1 in Group A vs. 4.6 ± 4.9 in Group B, p < 0.001). Abdominal D2 or additional LN dissection was performed more frequently in Group A patients. The number of patients who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy was also higher for group B.
Table 1
Demographics of gastroesophageal junction cancer patients
 
Patients without MLND
Group A
(N = 261)
Patients with MLND
Group B
(N = 29)
Value
Age
60.6 ± 12.1
61.4 ± 11.0
0.751
Sex
  
0.641
 Male
200 (76.6%)
24 (82.8%)
 
 Female
61 (23.4%)
5 (17.2%)
 
BMI*
23.6 ± 3.5
23.0 ± 3.5
0.492
ASA score**
  
0.809
 0
82 (31.4%)
10 (34.4%)
 
 1
162 (62.0%)
17 (58.6%)
 
 2 or more
17 (6.5%)
2 (6.8%)
 
Siewert Type
  
0.019
 Type II
103 (39.5%)
18 (62.1%)
 
 Type III
158 (60.5%)
11 (37.9%)
 
 Tumor size
4.4 ± 2.5
5.7 ± 2.9
0.025
Surgical procedure
  
< 0.001
 Total gastrectomy
238 (91.2%)
16 (55.2%)
 
 Proximal gastrectomy
23 (8.8%)
1 (3.4%)
 
 Esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis)
0 (0%)
12 (41.4%)
 
Splenectomy
  
1.000
 Yes
17 (6.5%)
1 (3.4%)
 
 No
244 (93.5%)
28 (96.6%)
 
Histopathological type
  
0.064
 Differentiated
103 (39.8%)
16 (56.2%)
 
 Undifferentiated
142 (54.8%)
13 (44.8%)
 
 Others
14 (5.4%)
0 (0%)
 
Lauren classification
  
0.006
 Intestinal
144 (55.2%)
12 (41.4%)
 
 Diffuse
79 (30.3%)
8 (27.6%)
 
 Mixed
24 (9.2%)
2 (6.9%)
 
 Unknown
14 (5.4%)
7 (24.1%)
 
 Proximal margin
1.9 ± 1.1
4.6 ± 4.9
< 0.001
Extent of Abdominal
  
< 0.001
 LN dissection
   
 D1+
36 (13.8%)
15 (51.7%)
 
 D2 or more
225 (86.2%)
14 (48.3%)
 
 Harvested LNs
42.4 ± 16.7
43.1 ± 14.6
0.827
 Metastatic LNs
3.0 ± 6.4
5.8 ± 6.7
0.043
T category
  
0.035
 pT1
107 (41.0%)
6 (20.7%)
 
 pT2
45 (17.2%)
5 (17.2%)
 
 pT3
70 (26.8%)
12 (41.4%)
 
 pT4
39 (14.9%)
6 (20.7%)
 
pN category
  
0.006
 pN0
158 (60.5%)
6 (20.7%)
 
 pN1
34 (13.0%)
11 (37.9%)
 
 pN2
26 (10.0%)
5 (17.2%)
 
 pN3
43 (16.5%)
7 (24.1%)
 
Cytology
  
0.027
 negative
260 (99.6%)
27 (93.1%)
 
 Positive
1 (0.4%)
2 (6.9%)
 
Stage***
  
< 0.001
 Stage I
147 (56.3%)
6 (20.7%)
 
 Stage II
54 (20.7%)
12 (41.4%)
 
 Stage III
57 (21.8%)
8 (27.6%)
 
 Stage IV
3 (1.1%)
3 (10.3%)
 
Adjuvant ChemoTx
87 (33.3%)
20 (68.9%)
< 0.001
* MLND mediastinal lymph node dissection
*BMI body mass index (kg/m2)
**ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists
*** AJCC 7th edition: Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction

LN dissection and metastasis

Distribution of metastatic lymph nodes among the dissected lymph nodes in each LN station was compared between the groups (Table 2). Of the 261 patients in group A, the lymph node stations were not classified in 54 patients. Three patients in group B (10.3%) showed metastatic MLNs. All these patients were Siewert type II patients, and one patient had metastasis of the lower and upper mediastinum simultaneously.
Table 2
Comparison of LN metastasis based on lymph node station
Group A (N = 207a)
Group B (N = 29)
LN station
No. of Patients with Metastatic LNs
No. of Patients with LN dissection
Percent (%)
No. of Patients with Metastatic LNs
No. of Patients with LN dissection
Percent (%)
Upper mediastinum
0
0
0
1
12
8.3
Middle mediastinum
0
0
0
0
11
0
Lower mediastinum
0
0
0
3
29
10.3
1
38
207
18.3
8
14
57.1
2
31
196
15.8
5
11
45.4
3
31
207
14.9
9
14
64.2
4d
4
190
2.1
1
10
10.0
4sa
4
191
2.1
2
9
22.2
4sb
5
203
2.4
1
11
9.0
5
3
196
1.5
0
9
0
6
2
197
1.0
0
12
0
7
19
191
9.9
4
14
28.5
8
9
119
7.5
1
8
12.5
9
15
189
7.9
4
11
36.3
10
5
95
5.2
0
4
0
11p
11
171
6.4
1
7
14.2
11d
4
128
3.1
0
5
0
12a
4
146
2.7
0
10
0
Para aortic LN
3
9
33.3
0
2
0
a Of the 261 patients in group A, lymph node station were not classified in 54 patients
In group A, the rate of abdominal LN metastasis of LN #1 (17.43%), #2 (15.81%), #3 (14.97%) and #7 (9.94%) was high, whereas group B had a higher rate of LN metastasis in all areas except the distal stomach (LN #5 and #6), splenic region (LN #10 and #11d) and LN #12a.

Postoperative complications

Surgical complication rates were 37.9% in group B and 30.3% in group A (Table 3). Severe complications (>Clavien-Dindo grade II) were detected in 4 (13.8%) and 31 (11.9%) cases (p = 0.397). Respiratory complications were significantly higher in group B (24.1%) compared to those in group A (7.3%) (p = 0.003). Postoperative mortality was 3.4 and 1.1%, respectively (p = 0.345).
Table 3
Postoperative Complications
 
Group A (N = 261)
Group B (N = 29)
Value
All complication
79 (30.3%)
11 (37.9%)
0.397
Severe complication (above CD grade III)a
31 (11.9%)
4 (13.8%)
0.764
Anastomosis related complication (leakage, stricture)
23 (8.8%)
5 (17.2%)
0.145
Respiratory realated
 Complication (pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax
19 (7.3%)
7 (24.1%)
0.003
 Postoperative mortality
3 (1.1%)
1 (3.4%)
0.345
aCD clavien dindo classification

Multivariable analysis of prognostic factors

The five-year disease-free survival rate was 79.5% in group A and 33.9% in group B (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1). The five-year overall survival rate was 80.9% in group A and 31.9% in group B (P < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Two hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analyses, excepting 3 patients who were included in the analysis for postoperative mortality within 30 days. The five-year disease-free survival rate was 94.3% in group A and 42.5% in group B (P < 0.001) (Fig. 3). However there was no difference in survival between the two groups in pStage III,IV (37% vs 20% p = 0.433) (Fig. 4).
In the univariate analysis, MLN dissection, D1 + dissection of abdominal LNs, longer tumor size, higher pT category, pN category and pM category, undifferentiated histology, and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with statistically worse survival (Table 4). A Cox proportional hazards model indicated that the extent of abdominal LN dissection was an independent prognostic factor (HR = 3.174, CI95% 1.302–7.738 p = 0.011) along with pT category (HR = 2.807, CI95% 1.309–6.017 p = 0.008) and pN category (HR = 3.815, CI95% 1.722–8.455 p < 0.001).
Table 4
Multivariable analysis of prognostic factor (Disease free survival)
  
Univariable
Multivariable
Number of patients
Disease free survival rates (%)
P value (Log rank test)
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
P value
Age
  
0.383
  
  < 60
165
77.0
   
  ≥ 60
122
74.6
   
Sex
     
 Male
221
75.6
0.815
  
 Female
66
77.3
   
Mediastinal LN dissection
  
< 0.001
 
0.328
 No
259
79.5
 
1
 
 Yes
28
33.9
 
1.473 (0.678–3.199)
 
Abdominal LN dissection
  
0.043
 
0.011
 D2 or more
238
81.4
 
1
 
 D1+
49
65.3
 
3.174 (1.302–7.738)
 
Siewert Type
  
0.870
  
 Type II
120
79.2
   
 Type III
167
73.7
   
Tumor size
  
< 0.001
 
0.731
  < 4 cm
151
86.8
 
1
 
  ≥ 4 cm
136
64.0
 
1.113 (0.487–1.656)
 
pT category
  
< 0.001
 
0.008
 pT1, T2
160
90.0
 
1
 
 pT3, T4
217
58.3
 
2.807 (1.309–6.017)
 
pN category
  
< 0.001
 
< 0.001
 pN0
163
93.9
 
1
 
 pN+
124
52.4
 
3.815 (1.722–8.455)
 
pM categorya
  
< 0.001
 
0.070
 pM0
282
77.3
 
1
 
 pM1
5
0.0
 
2.754 (0.920–8.241)
 
Histology
  
0.025
 
0.109
 Differentiated
117
82.1
 
1
 
 Undifferentiated
155
74.2
 
1.469 (0.918–2.350)
 
Proximal margin
  
0.445
  
  ≥ 2 cm
140
76.4
   
  < 2 cm
147
75.5
   
Chemotherapy
  
< 0.001
 
0.096
 No
179
90.5
 
1
 
 Yes
108
51.9
 
1.751 (0.905–3.388)
 
apM category: 3cases were diagnosed with washing cytology positive and 3cases were diagnosed with paraaortic LN metastasis in final pathology

Recurrence pattern

The recurrence pattern was classified according to the site of initial recurrence (Table 5). A total of 40 patients (33.3%) in group A and 15 patients (51.7%) in group B revealed recurrences during the follow-up period. Multiple recurrences detected simultaneously were also included. LN recurrence (50%) was the most common type of recurrence in group B. LN recurrence and hematogenous metastasis occurred at the same rate (34.7%) in group A. When comparing patterns of LN recurrence, the MLN recurrence was more common in group B (50%, 4/8), whereas the paraaortic LN recurrence rate was more common (81%, 13/16) in group A.
Table 5
Recurrent pattern
Recurrence site
Group A (N = 40)a
Group B (N = 15)b
Locoregional
18 (39.1%)
10 (62.5%)
LN recurrence
16
8
Para aortic
13
3
Mediastinal
2
4
Perigastric
1
1
Anastomosis site
2
2
Peritoneum
12 (26.0%)
2 (12.5%)
Hematogenous
16 (34.7%)
4 (25.0%)
Liver
5
1
Lung
2
2
Bone
3
1
Colon
2
0
Kidney
1
0
Ovary
2
0
Brain
1
0
aIn patients without Mediastinal LN dissection group (group A), recurrence was found concurrently in 6 cases. In 3 cases, paraaortic metastasis and hematogeouns metastasis were present. In 3 cases, peritomeum and hematogeous metastasis were found
b In patients with Mediastinal LN dissection group (group B), there was a case in which paraaortic metastasis and bone metastasis were found concurrently
Among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, recurrence was significantly increased from 42.9% (12 cases) to 57.1% (16 cases) when the delay of adjuvant chemotherapy was more than 8 weeks. (p = 0.021).

Discussion

In this study, the pathologic stage (pT category, pN category) and extent of abdominal LN dissection were significant prognostic factors rather than MLN dissection and the Siewert classification type in GEJ cancer. Even though patients with MLN dissection had more advanced disease and a poor prognosis, the analysis of the recurrence pattern showed that MLN dissection did not reduce MLN recurrence. In addition, the respiratory complications increased after MLN dissection. The prognostic significance of MLN dissection in GEJ cancer was not conclusive in this study.
In this study, none of the patients were diagnosed with Siewert type I adenocarcinoma. Unlike studies conducted in Western countries [3], studies in Korea and Japan reported the rates of Siewert type I cancer to be very low or close to zero in comparison with the rates of Siewert type II and III cancers [17, 18]. Consequently, concern was focused on the characteristics and treatment of Siewert type II GEJ cancer in Eastern Asian countries.
MLN metastasis rates in GE junction Type II and III adenocarcinomas are reported to be 5–25% [69], and postoperative MLN recurrence rates are reported to be 0–11% [6, 10, 11, 19]. In this study, none of the type III patients showed recurrence in the mediastinum. Considering that MLN dissection can increase respiratory complications in this study, MLN dissection seems to be unnecessary for type III GEJ cancer in Eastern Asian patients.
There has been controversy as to whether GEJ cancer should be classified and treated as esophageal cancer or gastric cancer [18]. The results of recent studies suggest that type II GEJ cancer should be classified as esophageal cancer including MLN dissection [14, 20]. However, in this study, MLN recurrence rates were higher in patients who underwent MLN dissection, even though more advanced-staged patients had been selected for MLN dissection. This suggests that MLN dissection might not be effective in preventing MLN recurrence in the present study. Similar results of a higher recurrence rate were found in a previous study in which patients underwent MLN dissection [11]. For this reason, further studies are needed to determine the necessity of MLN dissection in GEJ cancer.
Recent studies have reported satisfactory prognoses for early stage GEJ cancer following total gastrectomy and abdominal LN dissection, and some of these studies have reported no mediastinal recurrence after surgery [10, 19]. This suggests that sufficient abdominal LN dissection is more important than MLN dissection in GEJ cancer. However, there have been few studies comparing the prognosis according to the extent of abdominal LN dissection. The necessity of D2 dissection in GEJ adenocarcinoma should be considered based on the results of this study.
Similar to the results of previous studies [9, 16], LN metastasis rates were high for LN stations #1, 2, 3, and 7, and LN metastasis rates were low for distal stomach LNs #5 and #6 in patients with GEJ cancer (0–3.5%). The rate of LN metastasis at the suprapancreatic area (#8a, #9 and #11p) was found to be 12.5–36.3% for the MLN dissection group (group B) indicating that abdominal LN dissection is more important for advanced GEJ cancer. LN#2 is known to be important for LN dissection of GEJ cancer as it follows the left inferior phrenic artery and drains into the paraaortic LNs. Approximately 70% of patients who have paraaortic LN recurrence have been reported to show metastasis at LN#2 in the initial operation [21]. In this study, of the 15 patients who had paraaortic LN recurrence, 9 patients (60%) showed LN #2 metastasis in the initial operation.
In multivariate analysis, the pT category and pN category were independent prognostic factors rather than MLND or the Siewert classification type. In this study, no significant survival difference was found between Siewert types. A study compared survival rates and reported that tumor location was associated with cancer prognosis [22], while others reported that Siewert type was not associated with cancer prognosis and that baseline stage had a stronger influence on cancer prognosis [6].
Postoperative complications were slightly higher in mediastinal LN dissection group (group B). postoperative complications may lead to delay or omission of adjuvant chemotherapy. Recent studies suggest that delay or omission of adjuvant chemotherapy may have an impact survival in GEJ cancer [23, 24]. Although adjuvant chemotherapy showed less prognostic relevance, among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, recurrence was significantly increased when the delay of adjuvant chemotherapy was more than 8 weeks in the present study.
The present study has several limitations. First, it was conducted retrospectively at a single institution and thus did not include a high enough number of patients who underwent MLN dissection. Selection bias may be present as retrospective studies, and the difference in clinicopathologic characteristics between the two groups could have the possibility of affecting the outcome. Therefore, relatively few patients had MLN recurrence in this study; thus, statistical results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, the results are not comparable to Western series because the multimodal treatment concepts, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation, are not applied in Eastern Asian patients. Furthermore, biologic and ethnic differences were not considered in this analysis.

Conclusion

Abdominal LN dissection and the pathologic stage are the more important prognostic factors in type II and III GEJ cancer rather than MNLD. MLN dissection itself did not show prognostic significance. Optimal lymphadenectomy for the abdomen and mediastinum should be determined in future studies.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center (No.NCC2017–0224). The need for and patients’ informed consent was waived given the retrospective nature of the study.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Committee of Korean Gastric Cancer Association. Korean gastric Cancer association Nationwide survey on gastric Cancer in 2014. J Gastric Cancer. 2016;16:131–40. Committee of Korean Gastric Cancer Association. Korean gastric Cancer association Nationwide survey on gastric Cancer in 2014. J Gastric Cancer. 2016;16:131–40.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Kusano C, et al. Changing trends in the proportion of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction in a large tertiary referral center in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:1662–5.CrossRef Kusano C, et al. Changing trends in the proportion of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction in a large tertiary referral center in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:1662–5.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Siewert JR, Stein HJ. Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J Surg. 1998;85:1457–9.CrossRef Siewert JR, Stein HJ. Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J Surg. 1998;85:1457–9.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3077–9.CrossRef Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3077–9.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Donohoe CL, Phillips AW. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: an 8th edition staging primer. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:E282–e4.CrossRef Donohoe CL, Phillips AW. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: an 8th edition staging primer. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:E282–e4.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Matsuda T, et al. Optimal surgical management for esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:560–6.CrossRef Matsuda T, et al. Optimal surgical management for esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:560–6.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Matsuda T, Takeuchi H. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with Siewert type II Esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study: reply. World J Surg. 2017;41:1395.CrossRef Matsuda T, Takeuchi H. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with Siewert type II Esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study: reply. World J Surg. 2017;41:1395.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamashita H, et al. Results of a nation-wide retrospective study of lymphadenectomy for esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:69–83.CrossRef Yamashita H, et al. Results of a nation-wide retrospective study of lymphadenectomy for esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:69–83.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hosokawa Y, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric junction according to Siewert classification: experiences at a single institution in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:677–83.CrossRef Hosokawa Y, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric junction according to Siewert classification: experiences at a single institution in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:677–83.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee IS, et al. Mediastinal lymph node dissection and distal esophagectomy is not essential in early esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:28.CrossRef Lee IS, et al. Mediastinal lymph node dissection and distal esophagectomy is not essential in early esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:28.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kurokawa Y, et al. Mediastinal lymph node metastasis and recurrence in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. Surgery. 2015;157:551–5.CrossRef Kurokawa Y, et al. Mediastinal lymph node metastasis and recurrence in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. Surgery. 2015;157:551–5.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hosoda K, et al. Impact of lower mediastinal lymphadenectomy for the treatment of esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:445–56.PubMed Hosoda K, et al. Impact of lower mediastinal lymphadenectomy for the treatment of esophagogastric junction carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:445–56.PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kakeji Y, et al. Lymph node metastasis from cancer of the esophagogastric junction, and determination of the appropriate nodal dissection. Surg Today. 2012;42:351–8.CrossRef Kakeji Y, et al. Lymph node metastasis from cancer of the esophagogastric junction, and determination of the appropriate nodal dissection. Surg Today. 2012;42:351–8.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Rice TW, et al. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: major changes in the American joint committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;8:304–17. Rice TW, et al. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: major changes in the American joint committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;8:304–17.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dindo D, et al. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240.CrossRef Dindo D, et al. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hasegawa S, et al. Is adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction different between Japan and western countries? The incidence and clinicopathological features at a Japanese high-volume cancer center. World J Surg. 2009;33:95–103.CrossRef Hasegawa S, et al. Is adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction different between Japan and western countries? The incidence and clinicopathological features at a Japanese high-volume cancer center. World J Surg. 2009;33:95–103.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Suh YS, et al. Should adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction be classified as esophageal cancer? A comparative analysis according to the seventh AJCC TNM classification. Ann Surg. 2012;255:908–15.CrossRef Suh YS, et al. Should adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction be classified as esophageal cancer? A comparative analysis according to the seventh AJCC TNM classification. Ann Surg. 2012;255:908–15.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim KT, et al. Outcomes of abdominal Total gastrectomy for type II and III gastroesophageal junction tumors: single Center's experience in Korea. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12:36–42.CrossRef Kim KT, et al. Outcomes of abdominal Total gastrectomy for type II and III gastroesophageal junction tumors: single Center's experience in Korea. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12:36–42.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Blank S, Schmidt T. Surgical strategies in true adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II): thoracoabdominal or abdominal approach? 2017Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:303–14.CrossRef Blank S, Schmidt T. Surgical strategies in true adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II): thoracoabdominal or abdominal approach? 2017Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:303–14.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Hosokawa Y, et al. Recurrence patterns of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma according to Siewert's classification after radical resection. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:4391–7.PubMed Hosokawa Y, et al. Recurrence patterns of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma according to Siewert's classification after radical resection. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:4391–7.PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Curtis NJ, et al. The relevance of the Siewert classification in the era of multimodal therapy for adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:202–7.CrossRef Curtis NJ, et al. The relevance of the Siewert classification in the era of multimodal therapy for adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:202–7.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Sisic L, et al. The postoperative part of perioperative chemotherapy fails to provide a survival benefit in completely resected esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Surg Oncol. 2017; Epub ahead of print. Sisic L, et al. The postoperative part of perioperative chemotherapy fails to provide a survival benefit in completely resected esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Surg Oncol. 2017; Epub ahead of print.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Sisic L, et al. Postoperative follow-up programs improve survival in curatively resected gastric and junctional cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:552–68.CrossRef Sisic L, et al. Postoperative follow-up programs improve survival in curatively resected gastric and junctional cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:552–68.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The optimal extent of lymph node dissection in gastroesophageal junctional cancer: retrospective case control study
verfasst von
Won Ho Han
Bang Wool Eom
Hong Man Yoon
Daniel Reim
Young-Woo Kim
Moon Soo Kim
Jong Mog Lee
Keun Won Ryu
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2019
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2019
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5922-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

BMC Cancer 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.