Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 11/2005

01-11-2005

Histological Grading in Gastric Cancer by Ming Classification: Correlation with Histopathological Subtypes, Metastasis, and Prognosis

Authors: Thomas Luebke, MD, Stephan E. Baldus, MD, Guido Grass, MD, Elfriede Bollschweiler, MD, Jürgen Thiele, MD, Hans-Peter Dienes, MD, Arnulf H. Hoelscher, MD, Stefan P. Moenig, MD

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 11/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this prospective study was to analyze Ming’s classification in correlation with other currently used classification systems of gastric cancer. In addition, we wanted to define the prognostic significance of the Ming classification system. The present study analyzed material of 117 patients with gastric carcinoma who underwent D2-gastrectomy with curative intent. All specimens were catagorized according to International Union Against Cancer (UICC) classification, World Health Organization (WHO) classification, Borrmann classification, Laurén classification, Goseki classification, Ming classification, and tumor differentiation. For analysis of correlation between the classification systems, the correlation coefficient according to Spearman was calculated. The survival curves have been calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. According to the Ming classification, 38.5% of the carcinomas exhibited an expanding growth pattern, and 61.5% of specimens showed an infiltrating growth pattern. The subtypes according to the Ming and Laurén classification correlated significantly (P < 0.001). WHO classification (P < 0.001), tumor differentiation (P < 0.001), and Goseki classification (P < 0.001), as well as the macroscopic classification of Borrmann (P < 0.001) and the pT and pN categories of the UICC classification exhibited a highly significant correlation with the Ming classification (P < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Median overall survival was 31.3 months. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 3-year survival rates were lower in the infiltrative tumor type when compared to the expansive tumor type according to Ming (P = 0.0847). In multivariate analysis, only the UICC system presented as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). This study shows that the Ming classification correlates significantly with the currently used classification systems for gastric cancer and with the UICC staging system, especially, the pT and pN category. The 3-year survival rates were lower in the infiltrative tumor type than in the expansive tumor type according to Ming. However, the Ming classification is not an independent prognostic factor.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ming SC. Gastric carcinoma: a pathobiological classification. Cancer 1977;39:2475–2485PubMed Ming SC. Gastric carcinoma: a pathobiological classification. Cancer 1977;39:2475–2485PubMed
2.
go back to reference Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Belli J, et al. Pathologic and phenotypic features of gastric cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;23:292–306PubMed Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Belli J, et al. Pathologic and phenotypic features of gastric cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;23:292–306PubMed
3.
go back to reference Flucke U, Monig SP, Baldus SE, et al. Differences between biopsy- or specimen-related Lauren and World Health Organization classification in gastric cancer. World J Surg 2002;26:137–140PubMed Flucke U, Monig SP, Baldus SE, et al. Differences between biopsy- or specimen-related Lauren and World Health Organization classification in gastric cancer. World J Surg 2002;26:137–140PubMed
4.
go back to reference Lauren PA, Nevalainen TJ. Epidemiology of intestinal and diffuse types of gastric carcinoma. A time-trend study in Finland with comparison between studies from high- and low-risk areas Cancer 1993;71:2926–2933PubMed Lauren PA, Nevalainen TJ. Epidemiology of intestinal and diffuse types of gastric carcinoma. A time-trend study in Finland with comparison between studies from high- and low-risk areas Cancer 1993;71:2926–2933PubMed
5.
go back to reference Watanabe A, Oshiro T, Oiwa H, et al. Prognosis of patients with gastric cancer and pyloric stenosis: histological differentiation. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:121–124PubMed Watanabe A, Oshiro T, Oiwa H, et al. Prognosis of patients with gastric cancer and pyloric stenosis: histological differentiation. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:121–124PubMed
6.
go back to reference Watanabe H, Nishimaki T. Factors affecting the growth and extension of gastric cancer—analysis of retrospective observation. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1983;10:482–488PubMed Watanabe H, Nishimaki T. Factors affecting the growth and extension of gastric cancer—analysis of retrospective observation. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1983;10:482–488PubMed
7.
go back to reference Goseki N, Takizawa T, Koike M. Differences in the mode of the extension of gastric cancer classified by histological type: new histological classification of gastric carcinoma. Gut 1992;33:606–612PubMed Goseki N, Takizawa T, Koike M. Differences in the mode of the extension of gastric cancer classified by histological type: new histological classification of gastric carcinoma. Gut 1992;33:606–612PubMed
8.
go back to reference Monig S, Baldus SE, Collet PH, et al. Histological grading in gastric cancer by Goseki classification: correlation with histopathological subtypes and prognosis. Anticancer Res 2001;21:617–620PubMed Monig S, Baldus SE, Collet PH, et al. Histological grading in gastric cancer by Goseki classification: correlation with histopathological subtypes and prognosis. Anticancer Res 2001;21:617–620PubMed
9.
go back to reference You WC, Blot WJ, Chang YS, et al. Diet and high risk of stomach cancer in Shandong, China. Cancer Res 1988;48:3518–3523PubMed You WC, Blot WJ, Chang YS, et al. Diet and high risk of stomach cancer in Shandong, China. Cancer Res 1988;48:3518–3523PubMed
10.
go back to reference Brinton LA, Gridley G, Hrubec Z, et al. Cancer risk following pernicious anaemia. Br J Cancer 1989;59:810–813PubMed Brinton LA, Gridley G, Hrubec Z, et al. Cancer risk following pernicious anaemia. Br J Cancer 1989;59:810–813PubMed
11.
go back to reference Mullaney PJ, Wadley MS, Hyde C, et al. Appraisal of compliance with the UICC/AJCC staging system in the staging of gastric cancer. Union International Contra la Cancrum/American Joint Committee on Cancer. Br J Surg 2002;89:1405–1408PubMedCrossRef Mullaney PJ, Wadley MS, Hyde C, et al. Appraisal of compliance with the UICC/AJCC staging system in the staging of gastric cancer. Union International Contra la Cancrum/American Joint Committee on Cancer. Br J Surg 2002;89:1405–1408PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bollschweiler E. Benefits and limitations of Kaplan-Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2003;388:239–244PubMedCrossRef Bollschweiler E. Benefits and limitations of Kaplan-Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2003;388:239–244PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ming SC. Cellular and molecular pathology of gastric carcinoma and precursor lesions: a critical review. Gastric Cancer 1998;1:31–50PubMedCrossRef Ming SC. Cellular and molecular pathology of gastric carcinoma and precursor lesions: a critical review. Gastric Cancer 1998;1:31–50PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Jass JR, Sobin LH, Watanabe H. The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors. A commentary on the second edition, Cancer 1990;66:2162–2167PubMed Jass JR, Sobin LH, Watanabe H. The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors. A commentary on the second edition, Cancer 1990;66:2162–2167PubMed
15.
go back to reference Mulligan RM. Histogenesis and biologic behavior of gastric carcinoma. Pathol Annu 1972;7:349–415PubMed Mulligan RM. Histogenesis and biologic behavior of gastric carcinoma. Pathol Annu 1972;7:349–415PubMed
16.
go back to reference Filipe MI, Jankowski J. Growth factors and oncogenes in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastric metaplasia. Endoscopy 1993;25:637–641PubMedCrossRef Filipe MI, Jankowski J. Growth factors and oncogenes in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastric metaplasia. Endoscopy 1993;25:637–641PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hermanek P. Tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas: histopathology, staging and prognosis Anticancer Res 1999;19:2393–2396PubMed Hermanek P. Tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas: histopathology, staging and prognosis Anticancer Res 1999;19:2393–2396PubMed
18.
go back to reference Songun I, van de Velde CJ, Arends JW, et al. Classification of gastric carcinoma using the Goseki system provides prognostic information additional to TNM staging. Cancer 1999;85:2114–2118PubMedCrossRef Songun I, van de Velde CJ, Arends JW, et al. Classification of gastric carcinoma using the Goseki system provides prognostic information additional to TNM staging. Cancer 1999;85:2114–2118PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Monig SP, Zirbes TK, Schroder W, et al. Staging of gastric cancer: correlation of lymph node size and metastatic infiltration. A.J.R. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:365–367 Monig SP, Zirbes TK, Schroder W, et al. Staging of gastric cancer: correlation of lymph node size and metastatic infiltration. A.J.R. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:365–367
20.
go back to reference Dixon MF, Martin IG, Sue-Ling HM, et al. Goseki grading in gastric cancer: comparison with existing systems of grading and its reproducibility. Histopathology 1994;25:309–316PubMed Dixon MF, Martin IG, Sue-Ling HM, et al. Goseki grading in gastric cancer: comparison with existing systems of grading and its reproducibility. Histopathology 1994;25:309–316PubMed
21.
go back to reference Piard F, Hillon P, Levillain P, et al. Does Ming’s classification of gastric carcinomas have epidemiologic or prognostic value? Ann Pathol 1986;6:329–334PubMed Piard F, Hillon P, Levillain P, et al. Does Ming’s classification of gastric carcinomas have epidemiologic or prognostic value? Ann Pathol 1986;6:329–334PubMed
22.
go back to reference Davessar K, Pezzullo JC, Kessimian N, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma: prognostic significance of several pathologic parameters and histologic classifications. Hum Pathol 1990;21:325–332PubMedCrossRef Davessar K, Pezzullo JC, Kessimian N, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma: prognostic significance of several pathologic parameters and histologic classifications. Hum Pathol 1990;21:325–332PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ribeiro MM, Sarmento JA, Sobrinho Simoes MA, et al. Prognostic significance of Lauren and Ming classifications and other pathologic parameters in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1981;47:780–784PubMed Ribeiro MM, Sarmento JA, Sobrinho Simoes MA, et al. Prognostic significance of Lauren and Ming classifications and other pathologic parameters in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1981;47:780–784PubMed
24.
go back to reference Garnier P, Vielh P, Asselain B, et al. Prognostic value of the Lauren and Ming classifications in gastric adenocarcinoma. Multidimensional analysis. Gastroenterol. Clin Biol 1988;12:553–558PubMed Garnier P, Vielh P, Asselain B, et al. Prognostic value of the Lauren and Ming classifications in gastric adenocarcinoma. Multidimensional analysis. Gastroenterol. Clin Biol 1988;12:553–558PubMed
25.
go back to reference Cimerman M, Repse S, Jelenc F, et al. Comparison of Lauren’s, Ming’s and WHO histological classifications of gastric cancer as a prognostic factor for operated patients. Int Surg 1994;79:27–32PubMed Cimerman M, Repse S, Jelenc F, et al. Comparison of Lauren’s, Ming’s and WHO histological classifications of gastric cancer as a prognostic factor for operated patients. Int Surg 1994;79:27–32PubMed
26.
go back to reference Dirschmid K, Scheiden R, Zimmermann G, et al. Tubular differentiated stomach carcinoma of the (Ming) infiltrating type. Pathologe 1996;17:122–126PubMedCrossRef Dirschmid K, Scheiden R, Zimmermann G, et al. Tubular differentiated stomach carcinoma of the (Ming) infiltrating type. Pathologe 1996;17:122–126PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Histological Grading in Gastric Cancer by Ming Classification: Correlation with Histopathological Subtypes, Metastasis, and Prognosis
Authors
Thomas Luebke, MD
Stephan E. Baldus, MD
Guido Grass, MD
Elfriede Bollschweiler, MD
Jürgen Thiele, MD
Hans-Peter Dienes, MD
Arnulf H. Hoelscher, MD
Stefan P. Moenig, MD
Publication date
01-11-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 11/2005
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7795-z

Other articles of this Issue 11/2005

World Journal of Surgery 11/2005 Go to the issue

Invited Commentary

Invited Commentary