Brief Article
Copyright ©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2011; 17(43): 4793-4798
Published online Nov 21, 2011. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i43.4793
Table 1 Characteristics of the patients with gastric cancer in this study
CharacteristicsAll patientsABCD
No. of patients951027544
Age (yr)Mean (range)67.9 ± 8.9 (38-83)69.2 ± 10.0 (48-79)65.5 ± 9.0 (43-77)68.4 ± 7.6 (38-83)70.3 ± 6.9 (63-78)
Median6970.56769.570
SexMale/female72/235/519/845/93/1
LocationU/M/L19/42/342/6/22/14/1115/22/170/0/4
Macroscopic typeElevated/flat/depressed51/4/405/0/512/0/1531/3/203/1/0
DifferentiationWell diff/poorly diff76/198/218/947/73/1
Table 2 Relationship between ABC (D) stratification and endoscopic atrophic border in patients with gastric cancers
Endoscopic atrophic border
ABC (D) stratificationNonClosed typeOpen typeTotal
A: H. pylori (-) PG (-)13610 (10.6%)
B: H. pylori (+) PG (-)171927 (28.4%)
C: H. pylori (+) PG (+)0104454 (56.8%)
D: H. pylori (-) PG (+)0134 (4.2%)
Total2 (2.1%)21 (22.1%)72 (75.8%)95 (100%)
Table 3 Summary of 10 patients with gastric cancer in group A and group A’
CaseStratificationAge (yr)SexLocationMacroscopic typeDifferentiationPG I/PG II levels (ng/mL)PG I/PG II ratioEndoscopic findingsPPI prescriptionH. pylori eradication therapy
1A70MUBorrmann IIPoor28.5/7.33.9Open typeNoNo
2A'48FMII c + IIISignet ring cell carcinoma55.9/8.26.8Closed typeNoYes
3A68MMII a + II cWell64.1/11.85.4Open typeNoNo
4A78FLII cWell13.6/4.23.2Open typeNoNo
5A'67FLII cWell46.4/10.84.3Closed typeYesNo
6A'79FMII a + II cWell86.2/10.97.9Closed typeYesNo
7A'77MMLST-GWell384.9/54.37.1NonYesNo
8A'77FUII cWell17.3/5.23.3Open typeNoYes
9A'57MMII cWell36.9/6.85.4Open typeNoYes
10A'71MMII a + II cWell38.6/7.94.9Open typeNoYes
Table 4 Histological analysis and ABC (D) stratification based on the status of endoscopic atrophic border
All patientsWell diffPoorly diffP value
No. of patients957619
Male:female72:2358:1814:5NS
Age (yr, mean ± SD)67.9 ± 8.970.2 ± 5.861.4 ± 12.9< 0.05
ABC (D) stratification
A: H. pylori (-) PG (-)10 (10.6%)8 (10.5%)2 (10.6%)NS
B: H. pylori (+) PG (-)27 (28.4%)18 (23.7%)9 (47.3%)
C: H. pylori (+) PG (+)54 (56.8%)47 (61.8%)7 (36.8%)
D: H. pylori (-) PG (+)4 (4.2%)3 (3.9%)1 (5.3%)
Endoscopic atrophic border
Non2 (2.1%)2 (2.6%)0 (0%)NS
Closed type21 (22.1%)15 (19.7%)6 (31.6%)
Open type72 (75.8%)59 (77.6%)13 (68.4%)
Table 5 Relationship between ABC (D) stratification and endoscopic atrophic border in histological differentiation, well differentiated adenocarcinoma
Endoscopic atrophic border
ABC (D) stratificationNonClosed typeOpen typeTotal
A: H. pylori (-) PG (-)1258 (10.5%)
B: H. pylori (+) PG (-)151218 (23.7%)
C: H. pylori (+) PG (+)074047 (61.8%)
D: H. pylori (-) PG (+)0123 (3.9%)
Total2 (2.6%)15 (19.7%)59 (77.6%)76 (100%)
Table 6 Relationship between ABC (D) stratification and endoscopic atrophic border in histological differentiation, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma
Endoscopic atrophic border
ABC (D) stratificationNonClosed typeOpen typeTotal
A: H. pylori (-) PG (-)0112 (10.6%)
B: H. pylori (+) PG (-)0279 (47.4%)
C: H. pylori (+) PG (+)0347 (36.8%)
D: H. pylori (-) PG (+)0011 (5.3%)
Total0 (0%)6 (31.6%)13 (68.4%)19 (100%)