Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Management of early gastric cancer that meet the indication for radical lymph node dissection following endoscopic resection: a retrospective cohort analysis

  • Satoru Kikuchi1Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • Shinji Kuroda1,
  • Masahiko Nishizaki1,
  • Tetsuya Kagawa1,
  • Hiromitsu Kanzaki2,
  • Yoshiro Kawahara2,
  • Shunsuke Kagawa1,
  • Takehiro Tanaka3,
  • Hiroyuki Okada4 and
  • Toshiyoshi Fujiwara1
BMC SurgeryBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:72

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0268-0

Received: 17 January 2017

Accepted: 15 June 2017

Published: 20 June 2017

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic resection (ER) has been widely accepted as the standard treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC). However, in patients considered to have undergone non-curative ER due to their potential risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), additional gastrectomy is recommended. The aim of the present study was to identify EGC patients after non-curative ER at high risk of LNM.

Methods

A total of 150 patients who had undergone ER for EGC were diagnosed as non-curative ER due to their potential risk of LNM. Clinicopathological data and clinical outcomes were examined retrospectively.

Results

Additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection was performed in 73 patients, and the remaining 77 patients were followed-up without additional gastrectomy. In patients who underwent additional gastrectomy, 8 patients had local residual tumor, and 8 patients had LNM, which were limited in the peritumoral nodes. Only lymphatic invasion (p = 0.012) was a statistically significant factor for LNM. The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were not significantly different between patients with and without additional gastrectomy.

Conclusion

Additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection is recommended for patients who were diagnosed as non-curative ER with lymphatic invasion, and minimizing the extent of lymph node dissection may be allowed for these patients.

Keywords

Early gastric cancer Endoscopic resection Lymph node metastasis

Background

Gastric cancer is the world’s third leading cause of cancer mortality, responsible for 723,000 deaths each year [1]. With advances in diagnostic techniques and the increasing prevalence of screening programs, the percentage of early gastric cancer (EGC) cases is reaching nearly 60% in Japan [2, 3]. Endoscopic resection (ER) including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely accepted as the standard treatment for EGC patients when the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is negligible [4, 5]. However, endoscopic diagnosis of EGC before ER is not always accurate, and some patients are diagnosed as non-curative ER due to the potential risk of LNM histologically after ER [57]. In patients diagnosed as non-curative ER, additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection is generally recommended [7]. However, the LNM rate of patients who have undergone additional gastrectomy after non-curative ER is less than 10% [810]. The aim of the present study was to investigate the optimal treatment strategies for non-curative ER patients with a potential risk of LNM based on retrospective analysis in a single institution.

Methods

Patients

From January 2004 to August 2013, 707 patients with EGCs treated with ER, including EMR and ESD, at the Endoscopy Center of Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan, were retrospectively studied. A total of 182 patients (25.7%) were subsequently diagnosed as non-curative ER after histological evaluation based on the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (version 3) [7] and they were classified into those with a positive hiatal margin (HM) only (n = 32), and those with a potential risk of LNM (n = 150). The clinical records of 150 patients after non-curative ER due to their potential risk of LNM were analyzed retrospectively with regard to clinicopathological findings of ER specimens, additional gastrectomy after ER, histology of surgical specimens, and prognosis.

The formalin-fixed specimens resected by ER were examined histologically using serial sections 2 mm in width according to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [11]. Lymphatic or venous infiltration was evaluated by examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections. Curability was evaluated based on the histological criteria for curative ER [7]. Non-curative ER was defined as potential risk of LNM or positive lateral resection margin.

For all patients with a potential risk of LNM, additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection was recommended, but for some patients, strict follow-up was selected due to the surgical risk, other primary cancers and new disorders after gastrectomy. They were divided into two subgroups: patients who underwent additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection and those who received strict follow-up without gastrectomy.

Surgical specimens were examined according to the recommendations of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [11]. The entire resected stomach area was divided into 5-mm-wide slices, and LNMs were evaluated in the central portion of each lymph node. Local residual tumor was defined as any cancer diagnosed histologically at the ER site.

Statistical analysis

Univariate analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test or the χ2 test. Variables showing a univariate association (p < 0.50) were also subjected to multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors related to LNM and local residual tumor. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Clinical outcomes of patients who had additional gastrectomy and those who underwent strict follow-up were collected and analyzed in April 2017. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP 11.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Seventy-three patients (49.7%) underwent additional gastrectomy (Fig. 1 ). The remaining 77 patients did not undergo additional gastrectomy by the reason of patient choice, high surgical risk, and other concomitant cancer. The patient’s clinical courses are summarized in Fig. 1. The demographics and clinical background characteristics of the 73 patients who underwent additional gastrectomy and the 77 who underwent strict follow-up without gastrectomy are compared in Table 1. The subgroup that underwent additional gastrectomy had a higher percentage of younger patients (68.8 versus 73.4 years; p < 0.001), positive lymphatic-vascular involvement (74.0% versus 40.3%; p < 0.001) and submucosal deep invasion (76.7% versus 51.9%; p = 0.002).
Fig. 1

Clinical course of patients with non-curative endoscopic resection. LNM, lymph nodes metastasis

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed as non-curative endoscopic resection with a potential risk of LNM

Factors

All

(n = 150)

Surgery

(n = 73)

Follow-up

(n = 77)

p Value

Age

71.2

68.8

73.4

<0.001*

Sex

M:F

128:22

66:7

62:15

0.11

Concomitant disease

22 (14.7%)

9 (12.3%)

13 (16.9%)

0.49

 Other cancer

11

5

6

 

 Hematologic disease

3

2

1

 

 Cardiovascular disease

3

2

1

 

 Liver cirrhosis

5

0

5

 

Positive lymphatic-vascular involvement

85 (56.7%)

54 (74.0%)

31 (40.3%)

<0.001*

Undifferenciated type

19 (12.7%)

8 (11.0%)

11 (14.3%)

0.63

Deep submucosal invasion (≥ sm2)

96 64.0%)

56 (76.7%)

40 (51.9%)

0.0021*

Minute submucosal cancer (sm1 ≥ 30 mm in size)

9 (6.0%)

4 (5.5%)

5 (6.5%)

1.00

VM positive or unclear

35 (23.3%)

12 (16.4%)

23 (29.9%)

0.056

HM positive or unclear

20 (13.3%)

6 (8.2%)

14 (18.2%)

0.093

The Fisher exact test or the χ2 test was used for the analyses

VM vertical margin, HM Hiatal margin, LNM lymph node metastasis

Statistical significance defined as * p < 0.05

Overall and recurrence-free survival curves are shown in Fig. 2. Among those who underwent additional gastrectomy, the median follow-up time was 4.8 (range 0.5–11.9) years. Two of these patients (2.7%) developed distant metastasis after surgery, and died from gastric cancer. The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survivals were 85.0% and 97.0%, respectively (Fig. 2). Among those who underwent strict follow-up without gastrectomy, the median follow-up time was 4.7 (range 0.2–11.8) years. Three patients (3.9%) developed recurrence (local recurrence in two patients and LNM in one patient), and both of local recurrence patients underwent gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy and are alive without recurrence. The remaining patient who had LNM refused further treatment, and was followed up. The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survivals were 79.4% and 95.3%, respectively (Fig. 2). The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survivals of patients who underwent strict follow-up without gastrectomy were not significantly different from those who underwent gastrectomy.
Fig. 2

Overall and recurrence-free survival of patients with or without additional gastrectomy. ER, endoscopic resection

The median interval between initial ER and additional gastrectomy was 88 (range 21–201) days, and there were no operation-related deaths. In additional gastrectomy specimens, 8 (11.0%) of 73 patients had LNM, which were limited in one or two peritumoral nodes. Primary tumor remained in 8 (11.0%) of 73 patients. Relationships among clinicopathological characteristics, nodal metastasis, and local residual tumor are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of pathological findings, remnant tumor, and lymph node metastasis

Factors

Remnant tumor

Univariate

p Value

Multivariate

p Value

LNM

Univariatep Value

Multivariate

p Value

Presence

(n = 8)

Absence

(n = 65)

Presence

(n = 8)

Absence

(n = 65)

Lesion size (mm)

30.3

26.4

0.21

0.35

27.9

26.7

0.81

̶

Lymphatic invasion

5

(62.5)

34

(52.3)

0.44

0.31

8

(100)

31

(47.7)

0.005*

<0.001*

Venous invasion

3

(37.5)

20

(30.7)

0.49

0.67

4

(50)

19

(29.2)

0.21

0.05

Undifferenciated type

2

(25)

6

(9.2)

0.21

0.32

1

(12.5)

7

(10.8)

1.00

̶

Deep submucosal invasion (≥SM2)

6

(75)

50

(76.9)

0.73

̶

7

(87.5)

49

(75.4)

0.67

̶

VM Positive or unclear

2

(25)

10

(15.4)

0.39

0.70

1

(12.5)

11

(16.9)

1.00

̶

HM Positive or unclear

3

(37.5)

3

(4.6)

0.015*

0.018*

0

(0)

6

(9.2)

1.00

̶

Univariate analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test or the χ2 test, and multivariate analysis was performed by using logistic regression analysis

Values in parentheses are percentages

VM vertical margin, HM hiatal margin

Statistical significance defined as * p < 0.05

On univariate analysis, HM was the only significant factor for local residual tumor (p = 0.015). For nodal metastasis, lymphatic invasion was the only significant factor (p = 0.005). Moreover, 8 (20.5%) of 39 patients with lymphatic invasion (ly (+)) had lymph node metastasis. On multivariate analysis, HM was the only significant factor for local residual tumor (p = 0.018). For LNM, only lymphatic invasion was significant (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Discussion

In this retrospective study, 707 EGC patients who were expected to satisfy the criteria for curative ER [7] underwent ER, but, in fact, 25.7% did not. Despite improvements in endoscopic examination, the endoscopic diagnosis of EGC is not always accurate, as several reports have mentioned, and is correct in only 80–90% of cases [1214]. When patients were diagnosed as non-curative ER based on their potential risk of LNM after pathological examination following ER, additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection was recommended [7, 15], despite the fact that the incidence of LNM of EGC is rare [9, 10]. Additional gastrectomy with lymph node dissection is necessary for EGC patients with a potential risk of LNM, but most patients without LNM have routinely undergone unnecessary surgery. The conventional gastrectomy with prophylactic lymph node dissection often has acute and chronic complications and reduces the patients’ quality of life (QOL). Thus, a specific treatment depending on the individual patient would benefit these patients by allowing them to avoid prophylactic surgery.

Patients diagnosed as non-curative ER were classified into two groups with or without a potential risk of LNM. Non-curative ER with positive HM as the only non-curative factor is generally considered to be an indication for additional local treatment (repeated-ESD or coagulation) or surgery or close observation according to the individual case [9, 16, 17]. However, it is sometimes difficult to achieve an exact diagnosis with ER specimens because of histological modifications that occur with ER [7, 18]. Several articles have reported that none of the patients diagnosed as non-curative ER due only to HM involvement developed LNM [9, 10].

The LNM rate among patients who underwent additional gastrectomy in this study was 11.0%, which was lower than the reported rate of 20% in patients with submucosal invasive cancer [5]. Some lesions with additional gastrectomy in this study had a lower risk of LNM than submucosal invasive cancer overall because they had been treated with curative intent by ER. Similar results have been reported previously, in which less than 10% of patients had LNM in surgical specimens following non-curative ER [1921].

The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survivals among patients who underwent strict follow-up without gastrectomy were not significantly different from those in patients who underwent gastrectomy. Choi et al. [22] also reported that OS and disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients treated with additional surgical resection and patients simply followed up after ESD in submucosa-invasive gastric cancer. However, this result should be carefully interpreted, because histological analysis demonstrated that the patients who underwent gastrectomy showed significantly higher lymphatic-vascular involvement and deeper submucosal invasion than those followed up without gastrectomy (Table 1), indicating that the patients with these unfavorable histological findings were more frequently selected for additional gastrectomy. Kawata et al. [20] and Suzuki et al. [21] reported that there was a significant difference in OS between additional surgery and follow-up groups, although disease-specific survival did not differ significantly between the two groups. In patient clinical backgrounds, the follow-up group was significantly older than the additional surgery group, and several patients died of causes other than gastric cancer. Therefore, advanced age or concomitant disease may have contributed to the poor prognosis of the follow-up group. In the current study, all patients in the follow-up group died of causes other than gastric cancer during the study period. This result indicates that strict follow-up instead of additional surgery may be an acceptable management option for certain patients with diagnoses with non-curative ER. Moreover, risk stratification associated with LN or distant metastasis and gastric cancer related death of non-curative ER patients is required for an appropriate treatment strategy.

In this study, 8 of 39 patients (20.5%) with positive lymphatic invasion and 4 of 23 (17.4%) with positive venous invasion had metastasis in regional LNs. Only lymphatic invasion was an independently significant factor of LNM (p < 0.001), and there was no LNM in lesions without lymphatic invasion. This result indicates that additional gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy should be performed for lesions with lymphatic invasion. Some similar studies [20, 21] reported that lymphatic invasion was an independent risk factor for LNM in non-curative ER patients. Furthermore, all metastatic nodes were located in the perigastric area close to the primary tumors. This suggests that minimizing the lymphadenectomy and reducing the extent of gastrectomy as additional surgery following non-curative ER may be acceptable. Some articles have reported that function-preserving gastrectomy, such as pylorus-preserving gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy, improved postoperative QOL, including postoperative symptoms, weight gain, and food intake volume [2325]. However, inadequate treatment may yield remnant metastatic LNs. In recent years, the validity of sentinel node navigation surgery for EGC was reported by some studies [26, 27]. Though it is unclear whether the sentinel hypothesis is suitable for EGC after ER, function-preserving surgery may be used for patients who have been diagnosed as non-curative ER in the future [28].

The limitations of this study are its retrospective, single-center design, and the differences in the clinicopathological background characteristics of the two groups. A prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) is needed to establish more appropriate treatment strategies for non-curative ER patients, although it may be difficult to conduct a prospective RCT for ethical reasons.

Conclusion

Additional gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy is strongly recommended for patients with lymphatic invasion among patients diagnosed as non-curative ER due to their potential risk of LNM, and minimizing the extent of lymphadenectomy may be allowed for these patients. However, a RCT is required to establish more appropriate treatment strategies for these patients.

Abbreviations

EGC: 

Early gastric cancer

EMR: 

Endoscopic mucosal resection

ER: 

Endoscopic resection

ESD: 

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

HM: 

Hiatal margin

LNM: 

Lymph node metastasis

OS: 

Overall survival

QOL: 

Quality of life

RCT: 

Randomized clinical trial

VM: 

Vertical margin

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists B, Grant Number 16 K21185.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available without restriction. Researchers can obtain data by contacting the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

SKi and MN designed the studies. SKu, TK, TT and HK performed data acquisition. Ski, SKu, MN, TK, HK, YK, Ska, TT, HO and TF performed data analysis and interpretation. Ski and MN prepared the manuscript. SKu, TK, HK, YK, Ska, TT, HO and TF revised paper critically. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Okayama University Hospital (number 1504–012). The research reported in this paper was in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences
(2)
Department of Endoscopy, Okayama University Hospital
(3)
Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Okayama University Hospital
(4)
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. IARC CancerBase No.11. Available: http://globocan.iarc.fr
  2. Everett SM, Axon AT. Early gastric cancer in Europe. Gut. 1997;41:142–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Shimizu S, Tada M, Kawai K. Early gastric cancer: its surveillance and natural course. Endoscopy. 1995;27:27–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gotoda T. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10:1–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, Ono H, Nakanishi Y, Shimoda T, et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 2000;3:219–25.Google Scholar
  6. Hirasawa T, Gotoda T, Miyata S, Kato Y, Shimoda T, Taniguchi H, et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis and the feasibility of endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2000;12:148–52.Google Scholar
  7. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver.3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Nagano H, Ohyama S, Fukunaga T, Seto Y, Fujisaki J, Yamaguchi T, et al. Indications for gastrectomy after incomplete EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2005;8:149–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Oda I, Gotoda T, Sasako M, Sano T, Katai H, Fukagawa T, et al. Treatment strategy after non-curative endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1495–500.Google Scholar
  10. Ito H, Inoue H, Ikeda H, Odaka N, Yoshida A, Satodate H, et al. Surgical outcomes and clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent potentially noncurative endoscopic resection for gastric cancer: a report of a single-center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;427405Google Scholar
  11. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma– 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:101–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Sano T, Okuyama Y, Kobori O, Shimizu T, Morioka Y. Early gastric cancer. Endoscopic diagnosis of depth of invasion. Dig Dis Sci. 1990;35:1340–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Seto Y, Shimoyama S, Kitayama J, Mafune K, Kaminishi M, Aikou T, et al. Lymph node metastasis and preoperative diagnosis of depth of invasion in early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2001;4:34–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Yanai H, Matsubara Y, Kawano T, Okamoto T, Hirano A, Nakamura Y, et al. Clinical impact of strip biopsy for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:771–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ryu KW, Choi IJ, Doh YW, Kook MC, Kim CG, Park HJ, et al. Surgical indication for non-curative endoscopic resection in early gastric cancer. Ann of Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3428–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee JH, Kim JH, Kim DH, Jeon TY, Kim DH, Kim GH. Park do Y. Is surgical treatment necessary after non-curative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer? J of Gastric Cancer. 2010;10:182–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Jung H, Bae JM, Choi MG, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S. Surgical outcome after incomplete endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98:73–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gotoda T. A large endoscopic resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection procedure for early gastric cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:71–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatta W, Gotoda T, Oyama T, Kawata N, Takahashi A, Yoshifuku Y, et al. Is radical surgery necessary in all patients who do not meet the curative criteria for endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer? A multi-center retrospective study in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:175–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kawata N, Kakushima N, Takizawa K, Tanaka M, Makuuchi R, Tokunaga M, et al. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis and long-term outcomes of patients with early gastric cancer after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1607–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Suzuki H, Oda I, Abe S, Sekiguchi M, Nonaka S, Yoshinaga S, et al. Clinical outcomes of early gastric cancer patients after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection in a large consecutive patient series. Gastric Cancer. 2017; [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  22. Choi JY, Jeon SW, Cho KB, Park KS, Kim ES, Park CK, et al. Non-curative endoscopic resection does not always lead to grave outcomes in submucosal invasive early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1842–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Morita S, Katai H, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Sano T, Sasako M. Outcome of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1131–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nunobe S, Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10:167–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ichikawa D, Ueshima Y, Shirono K, Kan K, Shioaki Y, Lee CJ, et al. Esophagogastrostomy reconstruction after limited proximal gastrectomy. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2001;48:1797–801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitagawa Y, Takeuchi H, Takagi Y, Natsugoe S, Terashima M, Murakami N, et al. Sentinel node mapping for gastric cancer: a prospective multicenter trial in Japan. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3704–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Takeuchi H, Kitagawa Y. New sentinel node mapping technologies for early gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:522–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayanagi S, Takeuchi H, Kamiya S, Niihara M, Nakamura R, Takahashi T, et al. Suitability of sentinel node mapping as an index of metastasis in early gastric cancer following endoscopic resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2987–93.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement