Gastric Cancer Matt White AM Report April 19, 2010
Dec 24, 2015
Gastric Cancer
Matt White
AM Report
April 19, 2010
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Epidemiology
Incidence: 21,260 cases in 2007 – ~7 per 100,000
11,210 cancer deaths in 2007 Mortality significantly decreased in past 75
years (unknown reasons)
Gastric tumors
85% adenoocarcinomas 15% lymphomas and gastrointestinal stromal
tumors (GIST)
Adenocarcinoma Cancer types
“Intestinal type” (more common)– Morphologically similar to intestinal
adenocarcinomas.
Diffuse-type– Lack of intercellular adhesions (germline mutation
in protein E-cadherin)
Spectrum of gastric cancer
Proposed progression: chronic gastritis -->
– chronic atrophic gastritis --> intestinal metaplasia -->
– dysplasia --> adenocarcinoma
Risk Factors for gastric cancer
Diet– nitroso compounds– low fruit/vegetable, high fried foods/processed meat– High salt intake
Obesity Smoking (HR 2-3) ? Alcohol H. Pylori Low socioeconomic status Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer
– 40-67% lifetime risk for men, 60-83% for women Immigrants from endemic areas
– maintain native country risk, risk to offspring similar to new homeland
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Presentation
Approximately 50% of cases present with symptoms and have disease extending beyond locoregional confines
Of locoregional cases, only ½ can undergo a potentially curative resection
Symptoms at presentation
Symptoms (cont’d)
Dysphagia: more common with proximal gastric tumors
Occult GI bleeding very common, overt bleeding <20%.
Less Common Symptoms
Pseudoachalasia: if Auerbach’s plexus involved
Colonic obstruction: if cancer spreads (direct extension) to colonic wall
Signs
Palpable abdominal mass: most common physical finding
If cancer spreads via lymphatics…– Left supraclavicular node (Virchow’s)– Periumbilical node (Sister Mary Joseph)– Left axillary node (Irish)– Enlarged ovary (Krukenberg's tumor)– Ascites
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Diagnosis
EGD– Gold standard– Single biopsy from ulcer -> sensitivity ~ 70%– Seven biopsies from ulcer -> sensitivity >98%– Brush cytology increases sensitivity of single
biopsies, aid in multiple biopsies unclear
Barium studies
False negative in as many as 50% of cases Sensitivity as low as 14% in early cases May be superior to EGD for linitis plastica
– EGD may be normal while “leather-bottle” will be apparent on radiograph
Linitis Plastica
Diffuse-type gastric cancer Tumor often infiltrates the submucosa and
muscularis propria Superficial biopsies may be falsely negative Combination of strip and bite biopsy needed
if suspicious for linitis plastica
Linitis Plastica, “leather bottle stomach”
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Staging of Gastric Cancer
Two systems: – Japanese classification (more elaborate and
anatomic based)– Western: developed by American Joint Committee
on Cancer (AJCC) and International Union Against Cancer (UICC) -- more widely used
Tumors at GE junction of in cardia of stomach within 5cm of GE junction– Classified using esophageal staging
Other caveats
T stage: dependent on depth of tumor invasion NOT size of lesion
Nodal stage: based on # of positive LN rather than location of LNs (proximity to tumor)
Staging workup
Biopsy Imaging
– CT: evaluates for metastases (M stage) 20-30% with negative CT have intraperitoneal disease at
laparatomy Accuracy of 50-70% for T stage Slightly worse accuracy for N stage compared to EUS
– EUS: most reliable nonsurgical method to evaluate depth of invasion
More accurate than CT for T stage 65-90% accurate for N stage
Staging workup
PET– More sensitive than CT for detection of distant
metastases. – Also useful for detecting LNs– Negative PET not helpful- even large tumors can
be falsely negative if metabolic activity low. Most diffuse gastric cancers (signet ring) are not FDG
avid
Staging workup
Serologic markers– CEA, CA-125, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 may be elevated
but have low sensitivity/specificity– None are diagnostic– Preoperative elevation in markers usually
pretends high risk of adverse outcome– No serologic finding should exclude surgical
consideration
AJCC Staging System
AJCC Staging System
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening
Treatment
Locoregional (stage I-III) disease– Potentially curable– Refer for multidisciplinary evaluation and
consideration of surgery
Advanced (stage IV) disease– Palliative therapy– Studies indicate longer survival and better quality
of life with systemic treatment
Treatment
Complete surgical resection with removal of LNs (only chance of cure)– Possible in < 1/3 of cases
Subtotal gastrectomy for distal carcinomas, total or near-total for proximal masses
Reduction of tumor bulk (palliative)– Chemotherapy (cisplatin + 5-FU or irinotecan)
Partial response in 30-50% of patients
– Radiation (for pain control, no mortality benefit with XRT alone)
Data from SEER. Patients diagnosed from 1991-2000 (n=14,097). Stage IA (n=1194), stage IB (n=655), stage IIA (n=1161) stage IIB (n=1195), stage IIIA (n=1031), stage IIIB (n=1660), stage IIIC (n=1053), stage IV (n=6148).
PrognosisStage TNM Features
% of Cases*
% 5-year survival*
0 TisN0M0 Node negative; limited to mucosa 1 90
IA T1N0M0Node negative; invasion of lamina propria or
submucosa 7 59
IB T2N0M0Node negative; invasion of muscularis
propria 10 44
II
T1N2M0 Node positive; invasion beyond mucosa but within wall 17 29T2N1M0
T3N0M0 Node negative; extension through wall
IIIAT2N2M0 Node positive; invasion of muscularis propria
or through wall 21 15T3N1-2M0
IIIB T4N0-1M0Node negative; adherence to surrounding
tissue 14 9
IV T4N2M0Node negative; adherence to surrounding
tissue 30 3Any M1 Distant Metastases
** Data from American Cancer Society
Objectives
Epidemiology Clinical Presentation Diagnosis Staging Treatment Screening/Follow-up
Screening
Currently screening programs in Japan, Venezuela, Chile due to high incidence
– Mostly barium studies, EGD is concerning findings– Some use serum pepsinogen testing for high risk with EGD
confirmation– H. pylori: sensitivity 88%, specificity 41% (Japan)– Japan study: 5-year survival 74-80 in screened group, 46-
56% for non-screened group. Not cost effective in US due to relatively low
incidence (<10 per 100,000)– Preventing incidence of 1 gastric cancer death estimated to
cost $247,600
Gastric Ulcers
25% of patient with gastric cancer have history of a gastric ulcer
American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations:
– Follow-up EGD in 8-12 weeks to verify healing. – Non-healing ulcers need repeat biopsies
Question of cost-effectiveness of repeat endoscopies; however, small (curable) lesions may be missed without follow-up.
Take Home Points
Most cases present in advanced stage Staging workup (CT vs PET vs EUS) to
evaluate extent of disease Staging laparoscopy indicated for medically
fit patients with >T1 lesion and without stage IV disease
Ensure follow-up of ulcers seen on EGD No effective screening in US patients
References
Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine Up to Date