Early gastric carcinoma (EGC) in Chinese patients remains poorly understood and endoscopic therapy has not been well established. Here, we compared endoscopic and clinicopathologic features between early proximal gastric carcinoma (PGC, n = 131) and distal gastric carcinoma (DGC, n = 307) in consecutive 438 EGCs diagnosed with the WHO criteria. By endoscopy, PGCs showed protruding and elevated patterns in 61.9%, while depressed and excavated patterns in 33.6%, which were significantly different from those (32.6% and 64.5%) in DGCs. PGCs were significantly smaller (1.9 cm in average, versus 2.2 cm in DGCs), invaded deeper (22.9% into SM2, versus 13% in DGCs), but had fewer (2.9%, versus 16.7% in DGCs) lymph node metastases. Papillary adenocarcinoma was significantly more frequent (32.1%, versus 12.1% in DGCs), as were mucinous and neuroendocrine carcinomas, carcinoma with lymphoid stroma (6.9%, versus 1.6% in DGCs); but poorly cohesive carcinoma was significantly less frequent (5.3%, versus 35.8% in DGCs). The overall 5-year survival rate was 92.9% in EGCs, and PGC patients showed shorter (42.4 months, versus 48.3 in DGCs) survival. Papillary and micropapillary adenocarcinomas and nodal metastasis were independent risk factors for worse survival in EGCs. EGCs in Chinese were heterogeneous with significant differences in endoscopy and clinicopathology between PGC and DGC.

SummaryClinicopathological characteristics of small gastric carcinoma have not been well defined in Chinese patients. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare small proximal (PGC, n = 111) with distal (DGC, n = 202) gastric carcinoma in 313 consecutive surgically resected small (≤2 cm) gastric carcinomas diagnosed with the WHO criteria. PGC patients were significantly older (average age 63 years versus 59 in DGCs) with a male/female ratio of 3:1. Most tumours were clustered along the lesser curvature (74% in PGCs and 65% in DGCs). Compared to DGCs, PGCs showed a protruded gross pattern significantly more frequently and were significantly better differentiated with a significantly wider histomorphological spectrum. Surprisingly, PGCs were composed of significantly fewer signet-ring cell carcinomas (1% versus 16% in DGCs) but were significantly more deeply invasive, compared to DGCs. Lymph node metastasis was detected in 23% overall, but was significantly less frequent in PGCs (16%) than in DGCs (26%) (p < 0.05). However, the difference in survival between the two groups was not statistically significant. Our results demonstrate that in Chinese patients, PGCs display distinct clinicopathological characteristics, compared to DGCs.

No abstract

No abstract

SPEC P16/CEN3/7/17 Probe fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization (FISH) has become the most sensitive method in indentifying the urothelial tumors and loss of P16 has often been identified in low-grade urothelial lesions; however, little is known about the significations of other P16 genetic status (normal and amplification) in bladder cancer.We detected P16 gene status by FISH in 259 urine samples and divided these samples into 3 groups: 1, normal P16; 2, loss of P16; and 3, amplified P16. Meanwhile, p16INK4a protein expression was measured by immunocytochemistry and we characterized the clinicopathologic features of cases with P16 gene status.Loss of P16 occurred in 26.2%, P16 amplification occurred in 41.3% and P16 gene normal occurred in 32.4% of all cases. P16 genetic status was significantly associated with tumor grade and primary tumor status (P = .008 and .017), but not with pathological tumor stage, overall survival, and p16 protein expression. However, P16 gene amplification accompanied protein high-expression has shorter overall survival compared with the overall patients (P = .023), and P16 gene loss accompanied loss of protein also had the tendency to predict bad prognosis (P = .067).Studies show that the genetic status of P16 has a close relation with the stages of bladder cancer. Loss of P16 is associated with low-grade urothelial malignancy while amplified P16 donotes high-grade. Neither P16 gene status nor p16INK4a protein expression alone is an independent predictor of urothelial bladder carcinoma, but combine gene and protein status together providing useful information on the clinical outcome of these patients.