MCO Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2049-9450 2049-9469 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/mco.2014.447 mco-03-01-0044 Articles Characteristics and prognosis of mucinous gastric carcinoma ISOBETARO HASHIMOTOKOUSUKE KIZAKIJUNYA MATONOSATORU MURAKAMINAOTAKA KINUGASATETSUSHI AOYAGIKEISHIRO AKAGIYOSHITO Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka 830-0011, Japan Correspondence to: Dr Taro Isobe, Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka 8-300011, Japan E-mail: taro_isobe@yahoo.co.jp 012015 22102014 3 1 44 50 26062014 08102014 Copyright © 2015, Spandidos Publications 2015

Mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) is a rare histological subtype of undifferentiated gastric carcinoma, accounting for ~2.6–6.6% of all gastric cancer cases. The clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of MGC are controversial. The present study aimed to determine the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of patients with MGC. We retrospectively compared the characteristics and postoperative survival of 70 patients with MGC and 2,492 non-MGC (NMGC) cases who underwent surgical resection between 1990 and 2010. MGC was characterised by larger tumor size, macroscopic Borrmann type 2 and 3, T4 invasion of the gastric wall, positive N2 and N3 lymph node metastasis, positive lymphatic vessel invasion, positive venous invasion, peritoneal metastasis and advanced tumor stage III and IV. The prognosis of MGC patients was worse compared to that of NMGC patients, as the former group consisted of more advanced-stage cases. When patients with similar disease stages were compared, the incidence of peritoneal metastasis was significantly higher among MGC patients. However, hepatic metastasis was found significantly more often in NMGC patients. Otherwise, the prognosis of MGC and NMGC patients with similar disease stages was not significantly different. Therefore, our findings indicated that, although MGC is more rare and mostly detected at an advanced stage, the diagnosis of the mucinous histological subtype was not an independent prognostic factor.

 gastric cancer mucinous gastric carcinoma Introduction

Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related mortality. One million new cases are diagnosed annually, accounting for 700,000 mortalities worldwide (1, 2). Undifferentiated gastric carcinomas are generally associated with a worse prognosis (3). Mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) is a rare histological subtype of undifferentiated gastric carcinoma, accounting for 2.6–6.6% of all gastric cancer cases (4–8). The available literature on MGC is currently limited, mostly due to its rarity. Several previous studies have suggested that the prognosis of MGC patients is poor (5, 9, 10), whereas others reported no differences in characteristics and prognosis between MGC and non-MGC (NMGC) cases (7, 11). Thus, the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of MGC following surgical resection remain controversial. The present study aimed to determine the clinicopathological characteristics and postoperative survival of MGC patients.

 Materials and methods <sec> <title>Patients

We identified 2,706 patients who underwent surgical treatment for gastric cancer between 1990 and 2010 at the Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine (Fukuoka, Japan). Patients with gastric cancer in the residual stomach following a prior gastrectomy and those undergoing surgery after an endoscopic procedure were excluded. Microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded surgical specimens revealed 70 cases of MGC and 2,492 of NMGC. MGC was defined by the World Health Organization as an adenocarcinoma, in which over half of the tumor area contained extracellular mucin pools (12).

The study design and procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Ethics Committee of Kurume University (no. 14057). All the participants provided written informed consent.

 Clinicopathological characteristics

We retrospectively reviewed the patients' medical charts, surgical records and histopathological reports to collect information on their clinicopathological characteristics, including age, gender, tumor size, tumor location, macroscopic type, histological type, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, distant metastasis and tumor stage. The tumor characteristics were defined according to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (3rd English edition) (13). All the patients were regularly followed up according to our standard protocol (at least every 3 months for 5 years), which included tumor marker studies, gastrointestinal endoscopy, ultrasonography and computed tomography.

 Statistical analyses

The clinicopathological factors were compared using the Fisher's exact test or the Pearson's χ2 test, as appropriate. Disease-specific survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups were assessed by the log-rank test. In the multivariate analysis, the Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent prognostic factors. A P-value of <0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant differences. All the statistical analyses were performed using JMP 10 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

 Results <sec> <title>Clinicopathological characteristics

Table I summarizes the characteristics of all 2,562 patients included in the present study. Of the 70 MGC cases (2.7% of all resected gastric cancer cases in this study), only 6 (8.6%) were early-stage, whereas the remaining 64 patients (91.4%) had advanced-stage disease. When compared to NMGC tumors, MGC tumors were larger in size (83.0 vs. 54.9 mm), were more frequently Borrmann type 2 and 3 (70.0 vs. 28.5%), presented with a higher rate of T4 invasion of the gastric wall (72.9 vs. 32.5%), positive N2 and N3 lymph node metastasis (62.9 vs. 25.5%), positive lymphatic vessel invasion (100.0 vs. 63.0%), positive venous invasion (72.9 vs. 39.6%), peritoneal metastasis (24.3 vs. 6.1%) and advanced tumor stages III and IV (67.1 vs. 29.4%). The clinicopathological characteristics of stage III and IV MGC and NMGC were also compared (Table II), revealing significant differences only in the peritoneal and hepatic metastasis status. MGC patients experienced a significantly higher incidence of peritoneal metastasis compared to NMGC patients (36.2 vs. 20.9%, respectively; P=0.014), whereas hepatic metastasis was more frequently encountered in NMGC patients (0.0 vs. 10.3%; P=0.021).

 Postoperative survival

The median follow-up period was 61.0 months (range, 1–228 months). Fig. 1 shows the postoperative disease-specific survival curves of all the patients. The disease-specific survival rate of MGC patients was significantly lower compared to that of NMGC patients (P<0.001). The 5- and 10-year survival rates of MGC patients were 48.7 and 75.2%, respectively, whereas the corresponding rates for NMGC patients were 43.6 and 72.9%, respectively. However, when survival was compared between MGC and NMGC patients according to disease stage, no significant differences in 5- and 10-year survival rates were observed between the two groups (Fig. 2 and Table III).

 Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors

The univariate analysis revealed that tumor size, macroscopic type, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphatic vessel invasion, venous invasion and peritoneal metastasis were statistically predictive of 5-year disease-free survival in MGC patients (Table IV). Of these 7 factors, peritoneal metastasis was determined as a relevant factor by the Cox proportional hazards model (odds ratio, 3.00; P=0.011). When all the investigated gastric cancer patients were analyzed, the Cox proportional hazards model revealed that tumor size, macroscopic type, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, peritoneal metastasis and hepatic metastasis were significant predictive factors for survival. However, histological type was not an independent prognostic factor (MGC vs. NMGC; odds ratio, 1.41; P=0.062) (Table V).

 Discussion

Although gastric carcinoma is one of the most common malignancies, its histological classification remains controversial. The incidence of MGC reportedly varies between 2.6 and 6.6% (4–8). In our cohort of 2,562 gastric cancer patients, 70 MGC and 2,492 NMGC cases were identified, with a 2.7% incidence of MGC.

Although a number of previous survival studies have attempted to compare carcinomas with and without mucinous characteristics, MGC remains a histological subtype of unclear prognosis. In this study, we investigated various clinicopathological characteristics, including age, gender, tumor location, tumor size, macroscopic type, lymphovascular invasion, peritoneal metastasis, hepatic metastasis and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. Kunisaki et al (4) and Hyung et al (8) reported no significant differences in tumor size between MGC and NMGC patients. Furthermore, Zhang et al (6) suggested that tumor size, depth of invasion and lymph node metastasis were not associated with MGC and NMGC. However, we observed that MGC and NMGC differed in tumor size, macroscopic type, lymphovascular invasion, peritoneal metastasis and TNM stage, which was in agreement with the findings of Adachi et al (7) and Yin et al (14).

In this study, only 6 of 70 MGC patients were diagnosed with early-stage disease. Our results also indicated that the incidence of early-stage diseases was lower in MGC compared to that in NMGC cases (8.6 vs. 55.1%). Several previous reports have described the rarity of early-stage gastric cancer. Lim et al (9) reported that the incidence of early-stage MGC was only 6.5% compared to 26.0% in NMGC cases, whereas those rates were 20.0 and 44.6%, respectively, in a study by Kunisaki et al (4). Therefore, it is necessary to compare the clinicopathological significance according to disease stage. We also investigated the clinicopathological characteristics of stage III and IV MGC and NMGC cases and found that the two groups did not differ in tumor size, macroscopic type, lymphovascular invasion and TNM stage. Additionally, peritoneal metastasis was more frequently observed in MGC, whereas hepatic metastasis was more common in NMGC cases. The rare incidence of hepatic metastasis in MGC was in accordance with the results reported by Kawamura et al (5).

The presence of a mucinous component is generally associated with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer patients (15). However, such a prognostic correlation is less well defined in MGC. Several studies reported a poor prognosis for MGC patients (5, 9, 10), while others suggested no significant prognostic differences between MGC and NMGC (7, 11). We observed that the 5-year survival rate of MGC patients was worse compared to that of NMGC patients. However, no such significant differences in survival rates were observed between the two groups when the patients were stratified according to their disease stage. Our results were in agreement with those of Yasuda et al (11) and Kawamura et al (5). Furthermore, the multivariate analysis demonstrated that mucinous histological type was not a prognostic indicator in patients with gastric cancer. Thus, our findings suggested that the main factor affecting the poorer prognosis of MGC compared to that of NMGC was the more frequent incidence of advanced-stage disease at diagnosis, rather than the aggressive biological behavior of MGC. However, the reason why MGC is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage remains unclear. Previous studies suggested the following possibilities: (i) MGC is considered to initially arise as a typical adenocarcinoma, which then becomes MGC as the tumor progresses and such a progression may be considered as a dedifferentiation process; (ii) as a tumor invades the gastric wall, the intraluminal excretion of mucin decreases and an increasing deposition of mucin leads to the intramural accumulation; and (iii) MGC is mainly located in the submucosal or deeper layer, which may also be explained by the intramural accumulation of mucin (7, 8, 14). However, the origin and progression of MGC remain poorly understood.

In conclusion, our results indicated that MGC is rare and mainly detected at an advanced stage, with a poorer overall prognosis compared to that of NMGC. However, the prognosis of MGC according to disease stage was similar to that of NMGC. Therefore, the MGC histological subtype was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of gastric cancer. Further investigation on the origin and progression of MGC is required to advance this field.

 References ParkinDMBrayFIDevesaSSCancer burden in the year 2000. The global pictureEur J Cancer37(Suppl 8)4662001 SantoroRCarboniFLepianePEttorreGMSantoroEClinicopathological features and prognosis of gastric cancer in young European adultsBr J Surg947377422007 LeeHHSongKYParkCHJeonHMUndifferentiated-type gastric adenocarcinoma: prognostic impact of three histological typesWorld J Surg Oncol102542012 KunisakiCAkiyamaHNomuraMMatsudaGOtsukaYOnoHAShimadaHClinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes of mucinous gastric carcinomaAnn Surg Oncol138368422006 KawamuraHKondoYOsawaSA clinicopathologic study of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the stomachGastric Cancer483862001 ZhangMZhuGYZhangHFGaoHYHanXFXueYWClinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis of mucinous gastric carcinomaJ Surg Oncol10264672010 AdachiYMoriMKidoAShimonoRMaeharaYSugimachiKA clinicopathologic study of mucinous gastric carcinomaCancer698668711992 HyungWJNohSHShinDWYooCHKimCBMinJSLeeKSClinicopathologic characteristics of mucinous gastric adenocarcinomaYonsei Med J40991061999 LimSWKimDYKimYJKimSKClinicopathologic features of mucinous gastric carcinomaDig Surg192862902002 WuCYYehHZShihRTChenGHA clinicopathologic study of mucinous gastric carcinoma including multivariate analysisCancer83131213181998 YasudaKShiraishiNInomataMShiroshitaHIshikawaKKitanoSClinicopathologic characteristics of early-stage mucinous gastric carcinomaJ Clin Gastroenterol385075112004 WatanabeHJassJRSobinLHHistological typing of oesophageal and gastric tumors: WHO international histological classification of tumors2ndCancer66216221671990 Japanese Gastric Cancer AssociationJapanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English editionGastric Cancer141011122011 YinCLiDSunZZhangTXuYWangZXuHClinicopathologic features and prognosis analysis of mucinous gastric carcinomaMed Oncol298648702012 SadahiroSOhmuraTSaitoTAkatsukaSAn assessment of the mucous component in carcinoma of the colon and rectumCancer64111311161989

Disease-specific survival of all the patients. The survival of mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) patients was significantly lower compared to that of non-MGC (NMGC) patients (P<0.001). The 5- and 10-year survival rates of MGC patients were 48.7 and 75.2%, respectively, whereas the corresponding rates for NMGC patients were 43.6 and 72.9%, respectively. MGC, solid line; NMGC, dotted line.

Five- and 10-year survival rates according to disease stage. There were no significant differences in 5- and 10-year survival rates between mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) and non-MGC (NMGC) patients. MGC, solid line; NMGC, dotted line.

Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between MGC and NMGC patients.

MGC (n=70) NMGC (n=2,492)
Characteristics No. % No. % P-value
Age, years (mean ± SD) 66.8±11.0 65.0±11.4 0.207
Gender 0.583
  Male 50 71.4 1,703 68.3
  Female 20 28.6 789 31.7
Tumor size, mm (mean ± SD) 83.0±41.4 54.9±39.7 <0.001a
Tumor location 0.345
  Upper 12 17.1 486 19.5
  Middle 16 22.9 738 29.6
  Lower 33 47.1 1,063 42.7
  Whole 9 12.9 205 8.2
Macroscopic type <0.001a
  Borrmann 0 7 10.0 1,377 55.3
  Borrmann 1 5 7.1 52 2.1
  Borrmann 2 18 25.7 294 11.8
  Borrmann 3 31 44.3 416 16.7
  Borrmann 4 4 5.8 173 6.9
  Borrmann 5 5 7.1 180 7.2
Depth of invasion <0.001a
  T1 6 8.6 1,373 55.1
  T2 8 11.4 191 7.7
  T3 5 7.1 117 4.7
  T4 51 72.9 811 32.5
Lymph node metastasis <0.001a
  N0 19 27.1 1,610 64.6
  N1 7 10.0 246 9.9
  N2 13 18.6 220 8.8
  N3 31 44.3 416 16.7
Lymphatic invasion 70 100.0 1,569 63.0 <0.001a
Venous invasion 51 72.9 986 39.6 <0.001a
Peritoneal metastasis 17 24.3 153 6.1 <0.001a
Hepatic metastasis 0 0.0 75 3.0 0.141
Stage <0.001a
  I 9 12.9 1,448 58.1
  II 14 20.0 312 12.5
  III 19 27.1 388 15.6
  IV 28 40.0 344 13.8

Statistically significant. MGC, mucinous gastric carcinoma; NMGC, non-MGC; SD, standard deviation.

Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between stage III and IV MGC and NMGC patients.

MGC (n=47) NMGC (n=732)
Characteristics No. % No. % P-value
Age, years (mean ± SD) 65.4±11.4 65.5±11.4 0.986
Gender 0.912
  Male 32 68.1 504 68.9
  Female 15 31.9 228 31.1
Tumor size, mm (mean ± SD) 98.6±39.6 92.5±41.0 0.343
Tumor location 0.153
  Upper 7 14.9 182 24.9
  Middle 7 14.9 121 16.5
  Lower 24 51.1 258 35.2
  Whole 9 19.1 171 23.4
Macroscopic type 0.364
  Borrmann 0 1 2.1 6 0.8
  Borrmann 1 1 2.1 24 3.3
  Borrmann 2 13 27.7 171 23.3
  Borrmann 3 25 53.2 324 44.3
  Borrmann 4 4 8.5 149 20.4
  Borrmann 5 3 6.4 58 7.9
Depth of invasion 0.928
  T1 0 0.0 5 0.7
  T2 1 2.1 21 2.9
  T3 3 6.4 41 5.6
  T4 43 91.5 665 90.8
Lymph node metastasis 0.411
  N0 1 2.1 26 3.5
  N1 4 8.5 122 16.7
  N2 11 23.4 175 23.9
  N3 31 66.0 409 55.9
Lymphatic invasion 47 100.0 731 99.9 0.800
Venous invasion 41 87.2 656 89.6 0.606
Peritoneal metastasis 17 36.2 153 20.9 0.014a
Hepatic metastasis 0 0.0 75 10.3 0.021a
Stage 0.094
  III 19 40.4 388 53.0
  IV 28 59.6 344 47.0

Statistically significant. MGC, mucinous gastric carcinoma; NMGC, non-MGC; SD, standard deviation.

Comparison of 5- and 10-year survival by disease stage between MGC and NMGC patients.

MGC (n=70) NMGC (n= 2,492)
5-year 10-year 5-year 10-year
Stage (%) (%) (%) (%) P-value
I 100.0 100.0 98.5 96.9 0.690
II 85.1 85.1 81.1 78.5 0.968
III 53.2 45.6 44.0 39.1 0.105
IV 14.3 9.5 6.4 4.1 0.386

MGC, mucinous gastric carcinoma; NMGC, non-MGC.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for MGC patients.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
No. 5-year disease-free Odds
Factors (n=70) survival rate (%) P-value ratio 95% CI P-value
Age (years) 0.870
  ≥65 47 45.2
  <65 23 52.2
Gender 0.291
  Male 50 50.7
  Female 20 43.8
Tumor size (mm) <0.001a 1.15 0.48–2.98 0.755
  ≥80 35 28.4
  <80 35 70.8
Tumor location (n=61) 0.803
  Lower 33 52.9
  Middle, upper 28 56.9
Macroscopic type (n=58) 0.014a 1.65 0.74–4.09 0.231
  Borrmann 3, 4 35 30.4
  Borrmann 1, 2 23 58.4
Depth of invasion <0.001a 1.93 0.27–39.5 0.546
  T3, T4 56 37.4
  T1, T2 14 100.0
Lymph node metastasis <0.001a 2.97 0.70–16.1 0.145
  N2, N3 44 32.2
  N0, N1 26 77.8
Lymphatic invasion 0.008a 1.46 0.28–6.04 0.629
  ly2, ly3 54 39.7
  ly0, ly1 16 79.1
Venous invasion 0.004a 1.05 0.24–3.62 0.948
  v1 51 39.8
  v0 19 74.8
Peritoneal metastasis <0.001a 3.00 1.30–7.04 0.011a
  Positive 17 11.8
  Negative 53 60.5
Hepatic metastasis
  Positive 0 -
  Negative 70 48.7

Statistically significant. MGC, mucinous gastric carcinoma; NMGC, non-MGC; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for all gastric cancer patients.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
No. Disease-free Odds
Factors (n=2,562) survival rate (%) P-value ratio 95% CI P-value
Age (years) 0.038a 1.10 0.92–1.30 0.278
  ≥65 1,443 72.6
  <65 1,119 76.8
Gender 0.711
  Male 1,753 50.7
  Female 809 43.8
Tumor size (mm) <0.001a 1.31 1.09–1.57 0.004a
  ≥80 576 34.2
  <80 1,986 85.8
Tumor location (n=2,348) 0.988
  Lower 1,096 78.9
  Middle, upper 1,252 79.4
Macroscopic type (n=993) <0.001a 1.47 1.20–1.80 <0.001a
  Borrmann 3, 4 624 30.7
  Borrmann 1, 2 369 58.8
Depth of invasion <0.001a 3.21 1.97–5.68 <0.001a
  T3, T4 984 38.3
  T1, T2 1,578 97.1
Lymph node metastasis <0.001a 2.52 2.01–3.18 <0.001a
  N2, N3 680 26.5
  N0, N1 1,882 91.6
Lymphatic invasion <0.001a 1.30 0.95–1.81 0.104
  ly2, ly3 1,059 39.7
  ly0, ly1 1,503 79.1
Venous invasion <0.001a 1.03 0.84–1.25 0.798
  v2, v3 293 29.2
  v0, v1 2,269 80.2
Peritoneal metastasis <0.001a 3.06 2.49–3.74 <0.001a
  Positive 170 5.0
  Negative 2,392 79.4
Hepatic metastasis <0.001a 3.45 2.56–4.59 <0.001a
  Positive 75 56.5
  Negative 2,487 76.6
Histopathological type 1.41 0.98–2.10 0.062
MGC 70 48.7 <0.001a
NMGC 2,492 75.2

Statistically significant. MGC, mucinous gastric carcinoma; NMGC, non-MGC; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.