Phenotypic classification of gastric signet ring cell carcinoma and its relationship with clinicopathologic parameters and prognosis

doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i23.3189

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 13, Issue 23

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3612)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

325

HTML

2751

Figures (1-5)

273

Tables (1-5)

263

Sum=3612

Jun 21, 2007 (publication date) through Feb 18, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (23)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Gastric Cancer

World J Gastroenterol. Jun 21, 2007; 13(23): 3189-3198
Published online Jun 21, 2007. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i23.3189

Table 1 Antibodies for immunohistochemistry

Antibody	Clone	Diluent’sproportion	Company
Gastric phenotypic markers
MUC5AC	CLH2	1:100	Novocastra, Newcastle, UK
MUC6	CLH5	1:50	Novocastra, Newcastle, UK
HGM	45M1	1:50	Novocastra, Newcastle, UK
Intestinal phenotypic markers
MUC2	Ccp58	1:100	Novocastra, Newcastle, UK
CDX2	CDX2-88	1:50	BioGenex, San Ramon CA
Li-cadherin	Clone 141713	1:200	Neomarker, Fremont, CA, USA
VILLIN	CWWB1	1:200	Novocastra, Newcastle, UK
Other antibodies
Ki -67	K-2	1:50	Zymed, San Francisco, CA, USA
CD44v6	VFF-7	1:50	Zymed , San Francisco, CA, USA
E-cadherin	4A2C7	1:50	Zymed , San Francisco, CA, USA
β-catenin	CAT-5H10	1:30	Zymed , San Francisco, CA, USA

Table 2 Gastric and intestinal phenotypic marker expression in gastric SRC carcinoma

Phenotype	Age/Gender	MUC2	Li-cadherin	CDX2	VILLIN	HGM	MUC5AC	MUC6
G type (n = 17)
1	65/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	+
2	60/M	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
3	67/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
4	29/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	+
5	66/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	+
6	49/M	-	-	-	-	-	+	-
7	49/M	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
8	69/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
9	33/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
10	38/F	-	-	-	-	-	+	-
11	35/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
12	56/M	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
13	39/M	-	-	-	-	-	+	-
14	70/F	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
15	42/M	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
16	42.M	-	-	-	-	-	+	-
17	66/M	-	-	-	-	+	-	-
I type (n = 10)
1	63/M	+	+	+	-	-	-	-
2	75/M	+	+	+	-	-	-	-
3	59/F	+	+	+	-	-	-	-
4	60/M	+	-	-	-	-	-	-
5	31/F	+	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	76/F	+	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	73/F	+	-	-	+	-	-	-
8	46/F	+	+	-	-	-	-	-
9	62/M	-	+	-	+	-	-	-
10	41/M	-	+	-	-	-	-	-
GI type (n = 31)
1	31/M	+	-	-	-	+	+	-
2	69/F	+	-	-	-	+	+	-
3	61/M	+	-	+	-	+	+	+
4	67/M	+	-	-	-	+	+	+
5	56/M	+	+	+	-	+	+	-
6	47/F	+	+	-	-	+	+	-
7	65/M	+	+	-	-	+	+	-
8	64/M	+	-	-	-	+	+	-
9	63/M	+	+	+	-	+	+	-
10	48/F	+	+	-	-	+	+	+
11	52/F	+	-	-	-	+	+	-
12	65/M	+	+	+	-	+	+	-
13	72/M	+	+	-	-	+	+	-
14	39/F	+	+	+	-	+	+	-
15	36/M	+	+	+	+	+	+	-
16	51/M	+	+	-	-	+	+	-
17	60/F	+	+	-	-	+	-	-
18	46/F	+	-	-	-	+	-	-
19	45/F	+	-	-	-	+	-	-
20	45/F	+	-	+	-	+	-	-
21	55/M	+	+	+	-	+	-	-
22	65/F	+	-	-	-	+	-	-
23	47/F	+	-	-	-	+	-	-
24	60/F	+	+	-	-	+	-	-
25	46/F	-	-	+	-	+	+	+
26	50/F	-	+	-	-	+	+	-
27	54/F	-	+	+	-	+	+	-
28	32/M	-	-	-	+	+	+	-
29	55/M	-	+	+	+	+	+	-
30	38/F	-	+	-	-	+	-	-
31	59/M	-	+	-	-	+	-	-
U type (n = 8)
1	36/M	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2	49/F	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3	39/M	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4	61/F	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5	70/F	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	67/M	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	64/M	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	34/F	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Table 3 Different expression patterns of phenotype markers and Ki67 and β-catenin expression in gastric SRC carcinoma

					β-catenin	Plasma/Nucleusβ-cateninexpression
Phenotype of gastricSRC carcinomas	Number ofpositive GPM	Number ofpositive IPM	Cases	Ki67 index> 25%	membraneexpression	Plasma/Nucleusβ-cateninexpression
G type			17	2 (11.8%)	11 (64.7%)	2 (11.8%)
G₁	1	0	5	0	3 (60.0%)	0
G₂	2	0	9	2 (22.2%)	6 (66.7%)	1 (11.1%)
G₃	3	0	3	0	2 (66.7%)	1 (33.3%)
I type			10	5 (50.0%)	1 (10.0%)^b	4 (40.0%)
I₁	0	1	4	1 (25.0%)	0	1 (25.0%)
I₂	0	2	3	3 (100%)	0	2 (66.7%)
I₃	0	3	3	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)
GI type			31	15 (48.4%)^a	12 (36.4%)	14 (45.2%)^a
GI₁	1	1	6	3 (50.0%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50.0%)
GI₂	1	2	3	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)
GI₃	1	3	1	0	0	1 (100%)
GI₄	2	1	6	3 (50.0%)	3 (50.0%)	3 (50.0%)
GI₅	2	2	5	4 (80.0%)	4 (80.0%)	2 (40.0%)
GI₆	2	3	5	2 (40.0%)	1 (20.0%)	1 (20.0%)
GI₇	2	4	1	0	0	1 (100%)
GI₈	3	1	2	1 (50.0%)	1 (50.0%)	1 (50.0%)
GI₉	3	2	2	1 (50.0%)	0	1 (50.0%)
U type	0	0	8	3 (37.5%)	4 (50.0%)	3 (37.5%)

GPM: Gastric phenotype marker. IPM: Intestinal phenotype marker.

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.05 vs G type.

Table 4 Correlation between muc2, cdx2, Li-cadherin, Ki-67 index and clinicopathologic features n (%)

		MUC2 expression			CDX2 expression			Li-cadherin expression			Ki-67 index
Factors	Cases	MUC2-(n = 34)	MUC2+(n = 32)	P	CDX2-(n = 52)	CDX2+(n = 14)	P	Li-cad-(n = 42)	Li-cad+(n = 24)	P	≤ 25%(n = 40)	> 25%(n = 26)	P
Gender
Male	32	17 (50.0)	15 (46.9)	> 0.05	23 (44.2)	9 (64.3)	> 0.05	18 (42.9)	14 (58.3)	> 0.05	18 (45.0)	14 (53.8)	> 0.05
Female	34	17 (50.0)	17 (53.1)		29 (55.8)	5 (35.7)		24 (57.1)	10 (41.7)		22 (55.0)	12 (46.2)
Age (yr)
Mean ± SE	66	50.9 ± 2.2	56.0 ± 2.2	> 0.05¹	53.5 ± 1.9	52.9 ± 3.1	> 0.05¹	51.9 ± 3.0	54.6 ± 2.6	> 0.05¹	53.9 ± 2.2	51.0 ± 2.3	> 0.05¹
Tumor diameter
< 5.0 cm	32	23 (67.6)	9 (28.1)	0.001	30 (57.7)	2 (14.3)	0.004	24 (57.1)	8 (33.3)	> 0.05	24 (60.0)	8 (30.8)	0.02
≥ 5.0 cm	34	11 (32.4)	23 (71.9)		22 (42.3)	12 (85.7)		18 (42.9)	16 (66.7)		16 (40.0)	18 (69.2)
Depth of wall invasion
T₁	13	11 (32.4)	2 (6.3)	0.008²	13 (25.0)	0	> 0.05	10 (23.8)	3 (12.5)	> 0.05	11 (27.5)	2 (7.7)	0.048²
T₂	22	10 (29.4)	12 (37.5)		16 (30.8)	6 (42.9)		15 (35.7)	7 (29.2)		14 (35.0)	8 (30.8)
T₃	22	10 (29.4)	12 (37.5)		15 (28.8)	7 (50.0)		11 (26.2)	11 (45.8)		10 (25.0)	12 (46.2)
T₄	9	3 (8.8)	6 (18.8)		8 (15.4)	1 (7.1)		6 (14.3)	3 (12.5)		5 (12.5)	4 (15.4)
Lymph node metastasis
LN (–)	29	21 (61.8)	8 (25.0)	0.003	25 (48.1)	4 (28.6)	> 0.05	20 (47.6)	9 (37.5)	> 0.05	22 (55.0)	7 (26.9)	0.025
LN (+)	37	13 (38.2)	24 (75.0)		27 (51.9)	10 (71.4)		22 (52.4)	15 (62.5)		18 (45.0)	19 (70.1)
Distant metastasis
M₀	60	32 (94.1)	28 (87.5)	> 0.05	48 (92.3)	12 (85.7)	> 0.05	39 (92.9)	21 (87.5)	> 0.05	36 (90.0)	24 (92.3)	> 0.05
M₁	6	2 (5.9)	4 (12.5)		4 (7.7)	2 (14.3)		3 (7.1)	3 (12.5)		4 (10.0)	2 (7.7)
Vascular invasion
V (–)	40	27 (79.4)	13 (40.6)	0.001	34 (65.4)	6 (42.9)	> 0.05	31 (73.8)	9 (37.5)	0.004	28 (70.0)	12 (46.2)	> 0.05
V (+)	26	7 (20.6)	19 (59.4)		18 (34.6)	8 (57.1)		11 (26.2)	15 (62.5)		12 (30.0)	14 (53.8)
TNM stage
I+ II	32	22 (64.7)	10 (31.2)	0.007	27 (51.9)	5 (35.7)	> 0.05	21 (50.0)	11 (45.8)	> 0.05	24 (60.0)	8 (30.8)	0.02
III + IV	34	12 (35.3)	22 (68.8)		25 (48.1)	9 (64.3)		21 (50.0)	13 (54.2)		16 (40.0)	18 (69.2)

¹t test;

²T1 vs T2 + T3 + T4.

Table 5 Correlation between four phenotypes of gastric SRC carcinoma and clinicopathologic features n (%)

		Four phenotypes of gastric SRC carcinoma
Factors	n	G type (n = 17)	I type (n = 10)	GI type (n = 31)	UC type (n = 8)
Gender
Male	32	8 (47.1)	5 (50.0)	15 (48.4)	4 (50.0)
Female	34	9 (52.9)	5 (50.0)	16 (51.6)	4 (50.0)
Age (yr)
Mean ± SE	66	53.7 ± 2.9	49.1 ± 4.0	54.7 ± 2.5	52.8 ± 4.3
Tumor diameter
< 5.0 cm	32	15 (88.2)^a	3 (30.0)^b	10 (32.3)	4 (50.0)
≥ 5.0 cm	34	2 (11.8)^a	7 (70.0)^b	21 (67.7)	4 (50.0)
Depth of wall invasion
T₁	13	7 (41.2)^c	3 (30.0)	1 (3.2)	2 (25.0)
T₂	22	5 (29.1)^c	2 (20.0)	12 (38.7)	3 (37.5)
T₃	22	4 (23.5)^c	2 (20.0)	13 (41.9)	3 (37.5)
T₄	9	1 (5.9)^c	3 (30.0)	5 (16.1)	0
Lymph node metastasis
LN (–)	29	13 (76.5)^c	4 (40.0)	8 (25.8)	4 (50.0)
LN (+)	37	4 (23.5)^c	6 (60.0)	23 (74.2)	4 (50.0)
Distant metastasis
M₀	60	16 (94.1)	8 (80.0)	28 (90.3)	8 (100)
M₁	6	1 (5.9)	2 (20.0)	3 (9.7)	0
Vascular invasion
V (–)	40	15 (88.2)^c	7 (70.0)	12 (38.7)	6 (75.0)
V (+)	26	2 (11.8)^c	3 (30.0)	19 (61.3)	2 (25.0)
TNM stage
I+ II	32	12 (70.6)^d	4 (40.0)	12 (38.7)	4 (50.0)
III + IV	34	5 (29.1)^d	6 (60.0)	19 (61.3)	4 (50.0)
IM
IM (–)	46	11 (64.7)	6 (60.0)	23 (74.2)	6 (75.0)
IM (+)	20	6 (35.3)	4 (40.0)	8 (25.8)	2 (25.0)

IM: Intestinal metaplasia in the surrounding mucosa.

^aP < 0.001 vs GI type;

^bP < 0.01 vs I type;

^cP < 0.01 vs GI type;

^dP < 0.05 vs GI type.

Citation: Tian MM, Zhao AL, Li ZW, Li JY. Phenotypic classification of gastric signet ring cell carcinoma and its relationship with clinicopathologic parameters and prognosis. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13(23): 3189-3198
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v13/i23/3189.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v13.i23.3189