Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 6, 2026
Intraoperative Gastroscopy for Tumor Localization in Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Published on: August 9, 2016
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach: is it really safe?
Hyun Jung Lee1, Gwang Ha Kim2, Do Youn Park3
1Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, 179, Gudeok-ro, Seo-Gu, Busan, 49241, South Korea.
Background:
Papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach has been treated according to the same endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) indication criteria as other differentiated-type adenocarcinomas. We aimed to compare lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) with papillary adenocarcinoma (EGC-P) with that in patients with EGC with nonpapillary adenocarcinoma (EGC-NP) and to consider the potential limitation of current ESD indication criteria in the treatment of EGC-P.
Methods:
In total, 1583 patients who underwent gastrectomy for EGC from 2005 to 2014 were included. Clinicopathologic characteristics of 56 patients with EGC-P were compared with those of 1527 patients with EGC-NP. The safety of ESD was evaluated, by application of current ESD indication criteria to EGC-P.
Results:
The frequency of submucosal invasion was significantly higher in EGC-P than in both EGC-NP with differentiated-type histologic appearance and EGC-NP with undifferentiated-type histologic appearance (71.4% vs 50.8% and 37.6%, respectively). In addition, the frequency of LNM in EGC-P was 17.9%, higher than that in both EGC-NP with differentiated-type histologic appearance and EGC-NP with undifferentiated-type histologic appearance (9.7% and 11.1%, respectively). When the current ESD indication criteria were applied to the 56 patients with EGC-P, 17 patients met the current indications. Of these patients, two (11.8%) had LNM and three (17.6%) had lymphovascular invasion (LVI). When LNM and LVI were combined, one of seven patients (16.7%) meeting the absolute ESD indications and three of ten patients (30.0%) meeting the expanded ESD indications would not be cured after ESD.
Conclusions:
The use of ESD should be more carefully applied in patients with EGC-P meeting the ESD indication criteria, especially the expanded indication criteria, after pretreatment workup compared with other differentiated-type adenocarcinomas, owing to the higher frequencies of submucosal invasion, LNM, and LVI in EGC-P.
