Laparoscopic gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer

  • Authors:
    • Hironori Tsujimoto
    • Yoshihisa Yaguchi
    • Isao Kumano
    • Risa Takahata
    • Yusuke Matsumoto
    • Kazumichi Yoshida
    • Hiroyuki Horiguchi
    • Suefumi Aosasa
    • Satoshi Ono
    • Junji Yamamoto
    • Kazuo Hase
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: September 19, 2012     https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2012.2046
  • Pages: 2205-2210
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) utilizes electrical coagulation, which can cause burns, fibrosis and adhesion of the stomach and surrounding tissue; these complications might increase the surgical difficulties for subsequent laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and the risk of complications. However, scarce data are available on the influence of previous ESD on LAG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LAG following incomplete ESD in patients with early gastric cancer. Ninety-seven patients who underwent LAG were analyzed retrospectively; 17 patients had undergone ESD previously and the remaining 80 patients had no history of ESD. Clinicopathological data and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. No differences were observed in surgical outcomes of LAG after ESD in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, total number of harvested lymph nodes, time until start of flatus, and postoperative hospital stay. These results were not influenced by tumor location and operative procedures. In conclusion, in terms of surgical outcomes, LAG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of early gastric cancer regardless of previous endoscopic treatment. LAG may be the first-choice radical treatment after incomplete ESD for early gastric cancer.

Introduction

Advances in diagnostic techniques have increased the detection rate of small and early-stage gastric cancers (1,2). The incidence of early gastric cancer is more than 40% (3,4), and patients with early gastric cancer have an extremely favorable prognosis after curative treatment, with 5-year survival rates exceeding 90% (46). Endoscopic resection (ER), including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), may be optimal for early gastric cancer in terms of improving the quality of life. However, ER sometimes fails to completely remove the cancerous lesion, and pathological examination of the resected specimen occasionally reveals a potentially high risk of lymph node metastases that does not meet the criteria for curative ER (7). These are considered cases of incomplete ER and additional ER and/or radical gastrectomy should be performed for such cases.

Since Kitano et al (8) reported the first laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer in 1991, this technique has become increasingly popular. The advantages of LAG include reduced blood loss and pain, early recovery of digestive tract activity, and short hospital stay (9,10). Therefore, LAG has been regarded as a standard procedure for treatment of early gastric cancer.

ER-induced inflammation causes edema, fibrosis, and adhesion of the stomach and surrounding tissue, which might increase the surgical difficulties for subsequent LAG and the risk of complications; however, few data are available on the influence of previous ER on LAG (11).

In this study, to assess the feasibility and safety of LAG after ER, we reviewed surgical outcomes for patients who underwent ESD and subsequently underwent LAG for early gastric cancer.

Materials and methods

Patients

One hundred-nine patients with early gastric cancer underwent LAG at the Department of Surgery from 2008 to 2010. Twelve patients who underwent simultaneous resection of other organs, such as the gall bladder (gallstones) and sigmoid colon (cancer), were excluded from this study. Seventeen patients were primarily assigned to the ESD group according to the gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan (7); among these 17 patients, 4 experienced active bleeding during endoscopic resection and the procedure was stopped. These patients subsequently underwent LAG. The remaining 13 patients underwent ESD. Indications for further LAG in these 13 patients were positive ESD margin (9 patients) and positive lymphatic and/or venous involvement in the ESD specimen (4 patients). The average interval between LAG and ESD was 44.8±19.0 days (range, 19–80 days) in patients with previous ESD. Eighty patients whose tumors did not meet the criteria for curative ER had no history of ESD and comprised the control group.

Clinicopathological findings of the patients were evaluated according to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (JCGC) (second English edition) published by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (12). Diagnosis of early gastric cancer was based on the preoperative assessment of depth of wall invasion by upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy, barium radiology, and endoscopic ultrasonography, with nodal involvement determined by preoperative computed tomography (4).

Indication for and procedure of ESD

Since 2005, we have regarded the following features as indications for ESD according to the gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan (7): i) presence of differentiated-type carcinoma limited to the mucosal layer; and ii) absence of ulceration or ulcer scars irrespective of the macroscopic type. A single-channel endoscope (GIF-H260; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was inserted under conscious sedation. Lesions were marked beyond the margins using a conventional needle knife (Needle papillotome; MTW Endoscopy, Wesel, Germany). A solution of 0.25% sodium hyaluronate in normal saline solution containing 0.001% epinephrine and 0.002% indigo carmine was injected into the submucosal layer and a circumferential incision was made to include the markings. Lesions were dissected using an insulation-tipped electrosurgical knife (EMR Knife; MTW Endoscopy) to curatively exfoliate tumors through the submucosal layer.

Indication for and procedure of LAG

Indications for LAG were as per those of the gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan (7), i.e., clinically mucosal or submucosal carcinoma without lymph node metastasis (cT1, cN0) is an indication for LAG.

After induction of general anesthesia, each patient was placed in a supine position. The surgeon stood on the left side of the patient and the first assistant stood on the right side; the laparoscopist stood between the abducted legs of the patient. A camera port was inserted into an inferior umbilical incision. Next, a pneumoperitoneum of 10–12 mmHg was created, and four additional ports (two ports with a diameter of 12 mm and two with a diameter of 5 mm) were inserted into the left upper, right lower, left lower, and right upper quadrants under laparoscopic imaging. An ultrasonically activated sealing device (Harmonic Scalpel Ace; Ethicon, Tokyo, Japan) and/or vessel sealing device (LigaSure V, Tyco Healthcare, Tokyo, Japan) was used.

Lymph node dissection of D1+α indicated dissection of the perigastric lymph nodes and nodes along the left gastric artery (station 7). D1+β lymph node dissection indicated dissection of the perigastric lymph nodes and stations 7, 8a (anterosuperior group of the common hepatic artery) and 9 (celiac axis). D2 lymph node dissection indicated dissection of the perigastric nodes and all second-tier nodes, depending on the tumor location. The lymph node station number was classified according to JCGC (12). Either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) or laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LPPG) was indicated for tumors located in the middle or lower part of the stomach. After LDG, either Billroth I anastomosis or Roux-en-Y reconstruction was performed with a 4-cm upper midline incision, depending on the size of the remnant stomach. LPPG was performed for tumors in the middle third of the stomach located at least 5 cm proximal to the pyloric ring, followed by two-layer gastro-gastro anastomosis. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) was indicated for tumors in the upper part of the stomach and more than half could be preserved as remnant stomach. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) was performed for tumors in the upper third of the stomach by adapting LPG. After LPG and LTG, esophagogastrostomy and esophagojejunostomy were performed, respectively, using a linear stapler (ETS45; Ethicon, blue cartridge) as previously described with some modifications (13,14). LAG was performed by a surgeon who had previously performed more than 50 LAGs.

Statistical analysis

Statistical calculations were performed using StatView version 5.0 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The data are expressed as mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test or χ2 test with Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The demographic data of patients who underwent LAG for early gastric cancer with or without previous ESD are depicted in Table I. Although the patient group that previously underwent ESD consisted of significantly more males than the group without previous ESD, no differences were observed in patient age, body mass index (BMI), tumor location and tumor circumference between the two groups. The patient group without previous ESD had a significantly higher incidence of depressed-type lesions, larger tumor size and a more frequent incidence of diffuse-type lesions because of the indications for ESD. No differences were observed in pathological stage, operative procedure, extent of lymphadenectomy and total number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups.

Table I

Demographic data in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Table I

Demographic data in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Previous ESDNo previous ESDP-value
Number1780
Age (years)69.9±7.065.2±12.40.13
Gender
 Male17 (100.0)54 (67.5)0.01
 Female0 (0.0)26 (32.5)
BMI (kg/m2)22.3±3.221.6±3.30.45
Tumor location
 U7 (41.2)15 (18.8)0.06
 M1 (5.9)26 (32.5)
 L9 (52.9)39 (48.8)
Tumor circumference
 Ant3 (17.6)12 (15.0)0.40
 Post4 (23.5)15 (18.8)
 Less10 (58.8)41 (51.3)
 Gre0 (0.0)12 (15.0)
Macroscopic type
 Elevated7 (41.2)8 (10.0)<0.01
 Depressed3 (17.6)65 (81.3)
 Mixed7 (41.2)7 (8.8)
Maximal tumor size (mm)21.5±9.037.6±23.8<0.01
Histological classification
 Intestinal17 (100.0)49 (61.3)<0.01
 Diffuse0 (0.0)31 (38.8)
Tumor depth
 T1a7 (41.2)40 (50.0)0.09
 T1b13 (17.6)3 (3.8)
 T1b27 (41.2)20 (25.0)
 T20 (0.0)9 (11.3)
 T30 (0.0)7 (8.8)
 T4a0 (0.0)1 (1.3)
Lymph node metastasis
 N017 (100.0)70 (87.5)0.50
 N10 (0.0)8 (10.0)
 N20 (0.0)2 (2.5)
Stage
 IA17 (100.0)60 (75.0)0.37
 IB0 (0.0)10 (12.5)
 IIA0 (0.0)5 (6.3)
 IIB0 (0.0)3 (3.8)
 IIIB0 (0.0)2 (2.5)
Operative procedure
 LDG7 (41.2)42 (52.5)0.25
 LPPG3 (17.6)19 (23.8)
 LPG4 (23.5)6 (7.5)
 LTG3 (17.6)13 (16.3)
Lymphadenectomy
 D1+α8 (50.0)19 (23.8)0.09
 D1+β8 (50.0)43 (53.8)
 D21 (6.3)18 (22.5)
Total number of harvested LNs22.0±9.327.0±14.20.17

[i] BMI, body mass index; U, upper third of the stomach; M, middle third of the stomach; L, lower third of the stomach; Ant, anterior wall of the stomach; Post, posterior wall of the stomach; Less, lesser curvature; Gre, greater curvature; LDG, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; LPPG, laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy; LPG, laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy; LTG, laparoscopic total gastrectomy; LN, lymph node.

Patients with previous ESD had co-morbidities more frequently than patients without previous ESD (Table II). No differences were observed in surgical outcomes such as incidence of postoperative complications, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, time until the start of flatus, time until the start of oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. No patient in either group was converted to open surgery. Next, we examined surgical outcomes in both groups according to the operative procedures (Table III). No differences were observed in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, total number of harvested lymph nodes, time until the start of flatus and the start of oral intake and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups.

Table II

Surgical outcomes in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Table II

Surgical outcomes in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Previous ESDNo previous ESDP-value
Number1780
Co-morbidity
 No5 (29.4)48 (60.0)0.02
 Yesa12 (70.6)32 (40.0)
  Hypertension8 (47.1)14 (17.5)
  Diabetes2 (11.8)8 (10.0)
  Respiratory dysfunction1 (5.9)4 (5.0)
  Arrhythmia0 (0.0)3 (3.8)
  Others2 (11.8)6 (7.5)
Previous laparotomy
 No11 (64.7)61 (76.3)0.32
 Yes6 (35.3)19 (23.8)
Postoperative complications
 No15 (88.2)71 (88.8)0.95
 Yes2 (11.8)9 (11.3)
  Gastric fullness1 (6.3)5 (7.1)
  Intestinal obstruction1 (6.3)0 (0.0)
  Enteritis0 (0.0)1 (1.4)
  Anastomotic leakage0 (0.0)1 (1.4)
  Wound infection0 (0.0)1 (1.4)
  Afferent loop syndrome0 (0.0)1 (1.4)
Operation time (min)216.8±33.5217.6±41.50.94
Intraoperative bleeding (ml)54.8±34.751.6±56.00.82
Time until the first flatus (days)2.9±1.12.7±0.80.44
Time until start of oral intake (days)4.1±2.04.0±2.70.87
Hospital stay (day)13.2±10.212.4±10.40.78
Conversion to open surgery0 (0)0 (0)>0.99

a Three patients had a history of two or more co-morbidities.

Table III

Surgical outcomes according to the surgical procedures in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Table III

Surgical outcomes according to the surgical procedures in patients with or without previous endoscopic treatment.

Previous ESDNo previous ESD


Surgical proceduresNMean ± SDNMean ± SDP-value
Operation time (min)
 LDG7201.4±33.942213.7±42.00.47
 LPPG3212.7±9.019212.4±33.60.99
 LPG4221.0±31.56219.3±51.10.96
 LTG3251.3±35.913235.8±45.20.59
Intraoperative blood loss (ml)
 LDG760.3±38.04247.3±52.70.54
 LPPG342.7±15.31967.6±67.10.54
 LPG452.0±47.0640.3±21.00.60
 LTG358.0±37.21347.9±61.00.79
Total numbers of harvested LNs
 LDG718.3±10.04226.2±13.10.13
 LPPG322.7±1.51923.7±11.60.88
 LPG419.8±7.9617.2±10.20.68
 LTG333.0±7.21339.0±16.50.56
Time until start of flatus (days)
 LDG72.3±0.5422.7±0.80.11
 LPPG33.0±0.0192.5±0.70.25
 LPG42.8±1.062.8±0.80.88
 LTG34.3±1.5132.8±1.10.06
Time until start of oral intake (days)
 LDG73.3±0.5424.2±3.60.49
 LPPG34.7±2.9193.7±1.20.31
 LPG43.8±1.064.0±0.60.63
 LTG36.0±3.5133.7±1.60.09
Postoperative hospital stay (days)
 LDG78.4±1.34211.9±7.70.25
 LPPG322.7±22.91914.1±16.60.44
 LPG410.3±2.1610.7±4.80.88
 LTG318.7±4.21312.4±9.30.28

[i] LDG, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; LPPG, laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy; LPG, laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy; LTG, laparoscopic total gastrectomy; LN, lymph node.

We examined several factors that may affect surgical outcomes by univariate analysis (Table IV). Although several factors including gender, obesity (BMI >25), tumor size affected operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and total number of harvested lymph nodes, previous ESD did not affect any surgical outcome measure. We obtained similar results in the multivariate analysis (data not shown).

Table IV

Univariate analysis of the factors that may affect surgical outcomes.

Table IV

Univariate analysis of the factors that may affect surgical outcomes.

Operation timeBlood lossPostoperative hospital stayTime until start of flatusTime until start of oral intakeTotal no. of harvested LNsPostoperative complications







HRP-valueHRP-valueHRP-valueHRP-valueHRP-valueHRP-valueHRP-value
Age (1-year increment)1.010.411.010.210.990.440.990.441.000.801.020.041.000.73
Gender (Male)2.090.011.930.010.970.911.150.591.270.361.930.021.090.75
Co-morbidity (Yes)1.480.151.380.261.310.300.760.311.180.520.720.201.110.71
Obesity (BMI ≥25)3.190.0031.680.100.910.750.830.560.950.860.960.880.830.52
Tumor location (U)1.810.051.450.260.700.281.160.631.230.521.070.840.900.74
Tumor size (≥50.0 mm)3.530.0011.440.321.290.441.060.850.950.870.680.270.940.86
Operative procedure (LTG)1.050.880.690.311.670.161.310.470.990.993.620.0011.230.58
Lymphadenectomy (D2)0.710.280.730.320.490.010.930.800.760.372.560.0010.830.51
Previous laparotomy (Yes)0.950.850.940.811.030.900.940.791.150.591.010.961.040.89
Previous ESD (Yes)0.720.320.860.630.960.911.030.920.850.610.640.210.950.86

[i] BMI, body mass index; U, upper third of the stomach; LTG, laparoscopic total gastrectomy; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; LN, lymph node.

Recurrence was not observed in any patient after LAG during a mean follow-up period of 12.9 months (range, 6–25 months).

Discussion

In this study, we did not observe any surgical difficulties for LAG after previous ESD in terms of surgical outcomes such as operation time, intraoperative blood loss, total number of harvested lymph nodes, time until the start of flatus and postoperative hospital stay. In addition, these results were not influenced by tumor location and operative procedures.

It is apparent that ER causes burn, fibrosis, and adhesion of the stomach and surrounding tissue because of electrical coagulation (15). Although we experienced non-physiological adhesion around the tumor in patients with previous ESD, we did not encounter critical difficulties such as severe adhesions and anatomical misidentification during LAG. According to the univariate and multivariate analyses, previous ESD did not affect surgical outcomes such as operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time until the start of flatus, time until the start of oral intake, total number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative complications. Nunobe et al (16) demonstrated that previous laparotomy, which also causes intra-abdominal adhesions, did not affect surgical outcomes and postoperative complications. This may be because of the advances in the LAG technique and the sealing devices used for LAG (17,18).

Jiang et al (11) demonstrated a significantly higher rate of preservation of the celiac branch of the vagus nerve and shorter postoperative stay in patients who underwent LAG more than 2 months after ER. In this study, the average interval between LAG and ESD was 44.8 days (range, 19–80 days). We cannot conclude what interval between ER and LAG is optimal for subsequent LAG because of the small sample size, but this should be clarified in the future.

Although frequent complications caused by ER include bleeding and perforation, this study did not include any patients who experienced perforation during ER. Perforation may lead to increased adhesion and will probably increase the difficulty for LAG (11). Further studies are warranted to clarify the effect of the endoscopic procedure on subsequent LAG.

The LAG procedure is complex, but its merits for patients include less postoperative pain, early return of bowel function, short period of hospitalization and good cosmetic result (9). In this study, pathological examinations in patients without previous ESD revealed that several cases had T2 or deeper of tumor depth and/or lymph node metastases, but this was not observed for patients with previous ESD. In this regard, LAG may be the first-choice radical treatment after incomplete ESD for early gastric cancer (11,19).

Thus, in terms of surgical outcomes, LAG is a safe and feasible procedure for treatment of early gastric cancer regardless of previous endoscopic treatment, and previous ER should not be a contraindication to LAG for early gastric cancer. As indications for ER have been extended (20,21), increased numbers of patients who underwent incomplete ER should be recommended for LAG. Thus, further studies will be necessary to provide the evidence of favorable long-term feasibility and outcome.

References

1 

Kim JJ, Lee JH, Jung HY, et al: EMR for early gastric cancer in Korea: a multicenter retrospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 66:693–700. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Roukos DH: Current advances and changes in treatment strategy may improve survival and quality of life in patients with potentially curable gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 6:46–56. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Lee HJ, Yang HK and Ahn YO: Gastric cancer in Korea. Gastric Cancer. 5:177–182. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar

4 

Tsujimoto H, Sugasawa H, Ono S, Ichikura T, Yamamoto J and Hase K: Has the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis improved in cases of early-stage gastric cancer? World J Surg. 34:1840–1846. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Itoh H, Oohata Y, Nakamura K, Nagata T, Mibu R and Nakayama F: Complete ten-year postgastrectomy follow-up of early gastric cancer. Am J Surg. 158:14–16. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

6 

Lee HJ, Kim YH, Kim WH, et al: Clinicopathological analysis for recurrence of early gastric cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 33:209–214. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Nakajima T: Gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan. Gastric Cancer. 5:1–5. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M and Sugimachi K: Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 4:146–148. 1994.PubMed/NCBI

9 

Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Uyama I, Sugihara K and Tanigawa N: A multicenter study on oncologic outcome of laparoscopic gastrectomy for early cancer in Japan. Ann Surg. 245:68–72. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Ziqiang W, Feng Q, Zhimin C, et al: Comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open radical distal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer management. Surg Endosc. 20:1738–1743. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Jiang X, Hiki N, Yoshiba H, et al: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy in patients with previous endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 98:385–390. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma. 2nd English Edition. Gastric Cancer. 1. pp. 10–24. 1998, View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Uyama I, Sugioka A, Matsui H, et al: Laparoscopic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy using a linear stapler after proximal gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 4:98–102. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Inaba K, Satoh S, Ishida Y, et al: Overlap method: novel intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 211:25–29. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar

15 

Tanaka M, Ono H, Hasuike N and Takizawa K: Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. Digestion. 77:23–28. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar

16 

Nunobe S, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, et al: Previous laparotomy is not a contraindication to laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. World J Surg. 32:1466–1472. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Tokunaga M, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, et al: Quality control and educational value of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy in a high-volume center. Surg Endosc. 23:289–295. 2009.PubMed/NCBI

18 

Tokunaga M, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Nunobe S, Ohyama S and Yamaguchi T: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for patients with earlier upper abdominal open surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 20:16–19. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Tonouchi H, Mohri Y, Kobayashi M, Tanaka K, Ohi M and Kusunoki M: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with laparoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy after endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 21:1289–1293. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, et al: Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 3:219–225. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al: A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 9:262–270. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

December 2012
Volume 28 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1021-335X
Online ISSN:1791-2431

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Tsujimoto H, Yaguchi Y, Kumano I, Takahata R, Matsumoto Y, Yoshida K, Horiguchi H, Aosasa S, Ono S, Yamamoto J, Yamamoto J, et al: Laparoscopic gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Oncol Rep 28: 2205-2210, 2012
APA
Tsujimoto, H., Yaguchi, Y., Kumano, I., Takahata, R., Matsumoto, Y., Yoshida, K. ... Hase, K. (2012). Laparoscopic gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Oncology Reports, 28, 2205-2210. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2012.2046
MLA
Tsujimoto, H., Yaguchi, Y., Kumano, I., Takahata, R., Matsumoto, Y., Yoshida, K., Horiguchi, H., Aosasa, S., Ono, S., Yamamoto, J., Hase, K."Laparoscopic gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer". Oncology Reports 28.6 (2012): 2205-2210.
Chicago
Tsujimoto, H., Yaguchi, Y., Kumano, I., Takahata, R., Matsumoto, Y., Yoshida, K., Horiguchi, H., Aosasa, S., Ono, S., Yamamoto, J., Hase, K."Laparoscopic gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer". Oncology Reports 28, no. 6 (2012): 2205-2210. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2012.2046