Prognosis and Biological Behavior of Gastric Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma Better or Worse: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background:

The clinical pathology of gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRC) is still unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in biological behavior and prognosis between SRC and non-signet ring cell carcinoma (NSRC).

Methods:

A total of 58 eligible studies were analyzed using RevMan and other auxiliary software. Biological behaviors were compared based on odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD). Hazards ratio (HR) was calculated for prognosis based on Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results:

Totally, 28,946 SRC patients were compared with 81,917 NSRC patients. Compared with NSRC patients, lower male: female ratio (OR = 0.53, P < 0.01), younger age (MD = −4.89, P < 0.01), more middle location (OR = 1.64, P < 0.01), more depressed type at early stage (OR = 1.31, P < 0.05), higher incidence of Borrmann type IV (OR = 1.96, P < 0.01), less lymph node metastasis at early stage (OR = 0.78, P < 0.05), better prognosis at early stage (HR = 0.59, P < 0.01), and worse prognosis at advanced stage (HR = 1.19, P < 0.01) were associated with SRC patients.

Conclusion:

The prognosis of SRC at early stage is better than other types of gastric cancer, while that of SRC at advanced stage is relatively poorer.

Introduction

Signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRC) is associated with unique histological features based on microscopic observation of the tumor cells rather than on biological behavior. Gastric SRC has been categorized as the “undifferentiated type” by Sugano et al. (1), the “diffused type” by Lauren et al. (2), the “infiltrative type” by Ming et al. (3), and “high grade type” by UICC. Several studies have shown that SRC is associated with a high rate of peripheral metastasis and poor prognosis (4–9); however, a few studies have indicated that SRC has a better outcome than other types of gastric cancer (GC) (10, 11). Meanwhile, several studies have demonstrated that the difference in survival rates between SRC and non-signet ring cell carcinoma (NSRC) is statistically insignificant (12, 13). Additionally, multiple studies have also indicated that early stage gastric SRC has a higher five-year survival rate than NSRC (14, 15). Here, we aimed to elucidate the difference in biological behavior between SRC and NSRC.

This meta-analysis compared the biological behavior and prognosis between SRC and NSRC patients, including gender, tumor location, lymph node metastasis (LNM), age, chemotherapy, tumor size, macroscopic type, and overall survival.

Methods

Population

All patients were diagnosed with GC.

Intervention and Comparator

Exposure Group

Patients who were diagnosed with SRC based on pathological analyses.

Control Group

Patients who were diagnosed with NSRC based on pathological analyses.

Outcomes

Biological behavior and prognosis.

Study Design

This meta-analysis complied with the PRISMA statement. All the included studies were primary research studies. There were no language restrictions.

Search Strategy

The Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from initiation until November 2020 as follows: “((“gastric” [Title/Abstract] OR “stomach” [Title/Abstract]) AND (((“cancer” [Title/Abstract] OR “tumor” [Title/Abstract]) OR “carcinoma” [Title/Abstract]) OR “neoplasm” [Title/Abstract])) AND ((“signet ring cell” [Title/Abstract] OR “signet-ring cell” [Title/Abstract]) OR “signet cell” [Title/Abstract])”, including both published and unpublished articles. There were no language restrictions. The articles were retrieved by more than three independent investigators and compiled.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The criteria for study enrollment were as follows: [1] Based on the WHO classification, SRC was classified when more than 50% cancer cells were predominantly SRC. [2] All studies related to the prognosis and biological behavior of gastric SRC were included. [3] All studies that showed differences in the biological behavior and prognosis between SRC and NSRC were included. [4] All the included studies were primary research articles. [5] If the same research team reported multiple studies during the same time period, only the latest article or that with complete data was included.

Studies without full text or efficacious data were excluded. Additionally, case reports and editorials were not included.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The following data were extracted from the included studies: publication year, name of the first author, country of author, sample size, and clinicopathological features (e.g., sex ratio, mean age, tumor location, tumor size, chemotherapy, macroscopic type, LNM, and overall survival). However, owing to insufficient data, other variables of clinicopathological features (e.g., venous invasion, peritoneal dissemination, and ulceration) were not extracted or analyzed. Engauge Digitizer 4.1 was employed to distinguish the survival curve and extract hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (data not shown).

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. Heterogeneity was detected by chi-square test. P-value >0.10 was considered as homogeneous, otherwise as heterogeneous. Moreover, the I² index was used to assess heterogeneity, and I² >50% was considered as statistically significant. For homogeneous affirmation, the fixed effects model was selected; otherwise, a random effects model was adopted. The odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and hazard ratio (HR) were calculated, and publication bias was assessed by Egger’s test.

Result

Search Result

A total of 4,093 studies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. After reading the abstracts, we further assessed the full text of 80 studies; we could not obtain the full text for nine studies; 13 contained no usable and reliable data. Finally, 58 eligible studies (5–62) were included in this meta-analysis (Figure 1), among which 31 reported the entire period of patients with SRC or NSRC, 25 focused on early GC, and two reported advanced GC regarding both SRC and NSRC (Table 1). The study population of SRC (28,946) was much smaller than that of NSRC (81,917).

Figure 1

Quality assessment was conducted with Newcastle–Ottawa scale based on three indexes (a maximum of nine points): selection, comparability, and exposure. Among the 58 included studies, 17 scored six points, 34 scored seven points, and seven scored eight points. Based on the threshold of six points, all the studies were eligible.

Clinicopathological Characteristics

The percentage of male patients of SRC was substantially less than that of NSRC (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.49–0.58, P < 0.01; Figure 2). The mean age of SRC patients was substantially younger than that of NSRC patients, at both early and advanced stages (MD = −4.89, 95%CI = −5.85–3.94, P < 0.01; Figure 3). No statistical difference in tumor size of SRC between SRC and NSRC was observed, irrespective of early GC (EGC) or advanced GC (AGC) (total: MD = −1.68, 95%CI = −8.48–5.11, P = 0.63; EGC: MD = 0.55, 95%CI = −0.58–1.67, P = 0.34; AGC: MD = 3.71, 95%CI = −0.24–7.67, P = 0.07; Figure 4). SRC was found to potentially occur at the middle location of the stomach, irrespective of EGC or AGC (OR = 1.64, 95%CI = 1.45–1.85, P < 0.01; Figure 5). Microscopic analysis found that early stage SRC was associated with more depressed type than NSRC (OR = 1.31, 95%CI = 1.03–1.66, P < 0.05; Figure 6A). Moreover, an increased number of incidences with Borrmann type IV at the advanced stage was noted in SRC patients than that in NSRC patients (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.45–2.66, P < 0.01; Figure 6B). However, no marked difference in LNM among advanced-stage SRC and NSRC was found (OR = 1.15, 95%CI = 0.74–1.80, P = 0.53, Figure 7C); while in all the GC cases or EGC cases, SRC was associated with less LNM, in comparison with NSRC (total: OR = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.63–0.96, P < 0.01; EGC: OR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.52–0.79, P < 0.01; Figures 7A, B). Moreover, 10 studies employed chemotherapy, while no marked difference in the chemotherapy rate was found between SRC and NSRC (OR = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.70–1.27, P = 0.85; Figure 8).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Prognosis

No statistically significant difference was noted in the overall survival between SRC and NSRC patients (HR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.94–1.22, P = 0.285; Figure 9A). Early stage SRC exhibited better prognosis than NSRC (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.45–0.79, P < 0.01; Figure 9B), while advanced-stage SRC exhibited poorer prognosis than NSRC (HR = 1.19, 95%CI = 1.13–1.27, P < 0.01; Figure 9C).

Figure 9

Publication Bias

No noticeable publication bias was observed based on the results of Egger’s test (P = 0.416; Figure 10).

Figure 10

Discussion

SRC is a highly malignant carcinoma mucocellulare. Abundant mucin in the cytoplasm of SRC drives the nuclei to one side of the cells, inducing a ring-like cell conformation (9). Approximately 1% of SRC occurs in organs including colon, urinary tract, gallbladder, pancreas, breast, and stomach. Previous studies have shown that SRC accounts for 8 to 30% of all gastric neoplasms (63). The global incidence of GC has recently declined, while that of gastric SRC is continually increasing (64). Although the included studies in this meta-analysis have reported the clinicopathological features of gastric SRC, the results are unclear.

Here, we found that gastric SRC was relatively frequently diagnosed in females; however, the underlying explanation for such an association has not yet been determined. Several studies have demonstrated the potential role of over-expressed estrogen in SRC, which has been associated with frequent metastasis in the uterus or ovary in SRC patients (65). Furthermore, Kim et al. found a substantially poorer overall survival in female SRC patients than in the male patients, especially those with advanced GC and aged ≤45 years (66). Here, the mean age of SRC patients was substantially younger than that of NSRC patients. The typical intracytoplasmic mucin, compressed nuclei in the corner, the tendency to be larger and sprawl superficially to mucosal and submucosal layers have ensured the early diagnosis of SRC at the early stage or younger age. Postlewait and Yokota claimed that the tumor size of NSRC was smaller than that of SRC. However, our study found no marked difference in the tumor size between the two groups (7, 9). Compared with NSRC, SRC was more commonly found in the middle location of the stomach; meanwhile, no marked difference between upper and lower locations was observed (data not shown). Thus, considering the macroscopic features of EGC, we suggested that SRC had more depressed type than NSRC. For AGC, Borrmann type IV was more commonly found in SRC than NSRC, which probably contributed to the poor outcome.

LNM is known to play a marked role in GC research. Our study implied that SRC was associated with less LNM than NSRC, especially for EGC, while no noticeable relationship was observed for AGC. Unlike other histological types, the correlation between the increased rate of LNM in SRC and the tumor size is not recognized (29). Due to the CDH1 mutation, early SRC was associated with a less aggressive state (67). SRC is thought to arise in the undifferentiated stem cell in lamina propria of gland neck. At the early stage, SRC was found to widely spread in the mucous layer and slowly to submucosal layer than NSRC. When SRC spread into the submucosa, it rapidly metastasized (68).Wang et al. reported that SRC was associated with less ulceration than NSRC, which was considered a major predictor for LNM (15).

The difference in prognosis between SRC and NSRC remains debatable. However, several studies have shown that SRC was associated with worse prognosis than NSRC (5, 23). However, Lee and Maehara reported the opposite results (10, 11). Our study indicated that the overall survival of SRC patients was insignificantly different from that of NSRC patients. The improved survival reported by several studies was probably related to the younger age of the SRC patients at presentation. Early stage SRC was associated with less LNM, and thus, it had better prognosis than NSRC. As a matter of fact, most of the included studies displayed that early stage SRC patients had a higher five-year survival rate. We extracted HR from the Kaplan–Meier curves, and the outcome was significant. Several studies have indicated that advanced-stage SRC was associated with poorer prognosis than NSRC (9, 50), while other studies could not find such an association (13, 34). The current study indicated that the poor prognosis of SRC was accompanied by the lower overall survival rate, as compared to NSRC. Consequently, early diagnosis and detection were crucial to improve the overall survival of gastric SRC. Furthermore, less invasive strategies, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), have been suggested for early stage GC to improve the quality of life of the patients. However, the Japanese GC treatment guidelines state that ESD was not feasible for the undifferentiated histology type of GC (69), which leads to controversial opinions on ESD for SRC treatment. Recent studies have reported dissimilar outcomes of ESD therapy for SRC (70). One study reported that ESD resulted in a higher rate of en bloc resection and complete resection on SRC than the poorly differentiated types of GC (35), which suggested that ESD might be preferred for EGC patients diagnosed with SRC. On the other hand, curative resection has been suggested for extended lymph node dissection for AGC. Furthermore, the effect of chemotherapy, either neoadjuvant of adjuvant, on SRC is still controversial (71, 72). Turgeon demonstrated that surgery resulted in a higher five-year overall survival rate than perioperative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant therapy for stage I SRC patients (73). The chemosensitivity of SRC is related to the CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusion (74). Compared with NSRC, SRC is speculated to be more chemo-resistant to conventional drugs, such as 5-FU and platinum (13, 23, 75). However, Pernot suggested that SRC possesses high sensitivity to taxane-based chemotherapeutic drugs or antiangiogenics (64). To improve the treatment strategy and prognosis is the important point of SRC.

This study has several limitations. First, most of the included studies were conducted in China, Korea, or Japan. The discrepancy in diet, heredity, and environment between Asia and other continents could have influenced the outcome. Second, no RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, and all the studies were retrospective analyses, which may result in a risk of bias. Third, since the HR was calculated from the data or extrapolated from the Kaplan–Meier curves, it was associated with reduced reliability. Finally, heterogeneity was high in the statistics process, which could lead to unavoidable biases. Therefore, additional data are essential to increase the quality and reliability of this meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Gastric SRC is associated with more female patients, younger patients, more occurrence at middle location of the stomach, more depressed type (EGC), higher incidence of Borrmann type IV (AGC), and less LNM (EGC) than NSRC. The prognosis of early stage SRC is better than that of other GC types, while the prognosis of SRC at the advanced stage was poor. Thus, SRC exhibits specific biological features and differential prognosis compared with NSRC, which may facilitate the development of tailored therapeutic strategy and individualized treatment.

Funding

This work was supported by the General Project of Liaoning Provincial Education Department (JCZR2020004).

References

• 1

  SuganoHNakamuraKKatoY. Pathological Studies of Human Gastric Cancer. Acta Pathologica Japonica (1982) 32(Suppl 2):329–47.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  LaurenP. The Two Histological Main Types of Gastric Carcinoma: Diffuse and So-Called Intestinal-Type Carcinoma. An Attempt at a Histo-Clinical Classification. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica (1965) 64:31–49. doi: 10.1111/apm.1965.64.1.31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  MingSC. Gastric Carcinoma. A Pathobiological Classification. Cancer (1977) 39(6):2475–85. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197706)39:6<2475::aid-cncr2820390626>3.0.co;2-l

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BuZZhengZLiZWuXZhangLWuAet al. Clinicopathological and Prognostic Differences Between Mucinous Gastric Carcinoma and Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma. Chin J Cancer Res (2013) 25(1):32–8. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2013.01.05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  LiuXCaiHShengWYuLLongZShiYet al. Clinicopathological Characteristics and Survival Outcomes of Primary Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma in the Stomach: Retrospective Analysis of Single Center Database. PloS One (2015) 10(12):e0144420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144420

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  PiessenGMessagerMLeteurtreEJean-PierreTMarietteC. Signet Ring Cell Histology is an Independent Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Gastric Adenocarcinoma Regardless of Tumoral Clinical Presentation. Ann Surg (2009) 250(6):878–87. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b21c7b

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  PostlewaitLMSquiresMH3rd, KoobyDAPoultsidesGAWeberSMBloomstonMet al. Prognostic Value of Signet-Ring Cell Histology in Resected Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol (2015) 22(Suppl 3):S832–9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4724-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  VoronTMessagerMDuhamelALefevreJMabrutJYGoereDet al. Is Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma a Specific Entity Among Gastric Cancers? Gastric cancer: Off J Int Gastric Cancer Assoc Jpn Gastric Cancer Assoc (2016) 19(4):1027–40. doi: 10.1007/s10120-015-0564-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  YokotaTKuniiYTeshimaSYamadaYSaitoTKikuchiSet al. Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach: A Clinicopathological Comparison With the Other Histological Types. Tohoku J Exp Med (1998) 186(2):121–30. doi: 10.1620/tjem.186.121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  LeeHHSongKYParkCHJeonHM. Undifferentiated-Type Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Prognostic Impact of Three Histological Types. World J Surg Oncol (2012) 10:254. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-254

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  MaeharaYSakaguchiYMoriguchiSOritaHKorenagaDKohnoeSet al. Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. Cancer (1992) 69(7):1645–50. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920401)69:7<1645::aid-cncr2820690702>3.0.co;2-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ChiuCTKuoCJYehTSHsuJTLiuKHYehCNet al. Early Signet Ring Cell Gastric Cancer. Digestive Dis Sci (2011) 56(6):1749–56. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1487-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  JiangCGWangZNSunZLiuFNYuMXuHM. Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Prognosis of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach: Results From a Chinese Mono-Institutional Study. J Surg Oncol (2011) 103(7):700–3. doi: 10.1002/jso.21878

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  HaTKAnJYYounHKNohJHSohnTSKimS. Indication for Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Early Signet Ring Cell Gastric Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol (2008) 15(2):508–13. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9660-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  WangZZhangXHuJZengWZhouZ. Clinicopathological Features and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Resection for Early Gastric Cancer With Signet Ring Cell Histology. J Visceral Surg (2015) 152(6):357–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2015.09.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  AiharaRMochikiEKamiyamaYOhnoTAsaoTKuwanoH. Matrilsin Expression is a Useful Marker of Submucosal Invasion and Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Stage Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. J Surg Oncol (2006) 93(6):491–7. doi: 10.1002/jso.20439

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  AhnHChungWCKimYJRyuSLimE. Clinical Outcomes of Mucinous Gastric Carcinomas Compared With non-Mucinous and Signet Ring Cell Carcinomas. Korean J Gastroenterol = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi (2020) 76(6):297–303. doi: 10.4166/kjg.2020.098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BozkayaYErdemGUOzdemirNYDemirciNSHocazadeCYaziciOet al. Comparison of Clinicopathological and Prognostic Characteristics in Patients With Mucinous Carcinoma and Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. Curr Med Res Opin (2017) 33(1):109–16. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1239192

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CaiLLiYYangXWangWGuoMLianXet al. Is the Signet Ring Cell Histological Type a Positive Prognostic Factor for Gastric Adenocarcinoma After D2 Radical Gastrectomy? Int J Clin Exp Pathol (2017) 10(10):10489–94.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  ChenJCaiRRenGZhaoJLiHGuoCet al. Differences in Clinicopathological Characteristics and Computed Tomography Findings Between Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma and Nonsignet Ring Cell Carcinoma in Early and Advanced Gastric Cancer. Cancer Med (2018) 7(4):1160–9. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1417

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ChenJNWangQWZhangQWTangZRLiXB. Poorly Differentiated is More Significant Than Signet Ring Cell Component for Lymph Node Metastasis in Mixed-Type Early Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study From a Large-Volume Hospital. Surg Endoscopy (2020) 35(4):1558–65. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07532-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChonHJHyungWJKimCParkSKimJHParkCHet al. Differential Prognostic Implications of Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: Stage Adjusted Analysis From a Single High-Volume Center in Asia. Ann Surg (2017) 265(5):946–53. doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001793

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  CuiJLiangHDengJDingXWangXZhangLet al. [Clinicopathological Features and Prognostic Analysis of Patients With Signet Ring Cell Gastric Carcinoma]. Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese J Oncol] (2015) 37(5):367–70.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GronnierCMessagerMRobbWBThiebotTLouisDLucGet al. Is the Negative Prognostic Impact of Signet Ring Cell Histology Maintained in Early Gastric Adenocarcinoma? Surgery (2013) 154(5):1093–9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GuoCGZhaoDBLiuQZhouZXZhaoPWangGQet al. Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Gastric Cancer With Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. J Gastroint Surg (2015) 19(11):1958–65. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2915-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GuoSShangMYDongZZhangJWangYZhengZCet al. Clinicopathological Features and Prognostic Analysis of Signet Ring Cell Gastric Carcinoma: A Population-Based Study. Trans Cancer Res (2019) 8:1918–30. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2019.09.06

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HuangKHChenMHFangWLLinCHChaoYLoSSet al. The Clinicopathological Characteristics and Genetic Alterations of Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma in Gastric Cancer. Cancers (2020) 12(8):2318. doi: 10.3390/cancers12082318

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HuhCWJungDHKimJHLeeYCKimHKimHet al. Signet Ring Cell Mixed Histology may Show More Aggressive Behavior Than Other Histologies in Early Gastric Cancer. J Surg Oncol (2013) 107(2):124–9. doi: 10.1002/jso.23261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HyungWJNohSHLeeJHHuhJJLahKHChoiSHet al. Early Gastric Carcinoma With Signet Ring Cell Histology. Cancer (2002) 94(1):78–83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  ImamuraTKomatsuSIchikawaDKawaguchiTKosugaTOkamotoKet al. Early Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach is Related to Favorable Prognosis and Low Incidence of Lymph Node Metastasis. J Surg Oncol (2016) 114(5):607–12. doi: 10.1002/jso.24377

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  JinEHLeeDHJungSAShimKNSeoJYKimNet al. Clinicopathologic Factors and Molecular Markers Related to Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Gastric Cancer. World J Gastroenterol (2015) 21(2):571–7. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i2.571

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KaoYCFangWLWangRFLiAFYYangMHWuCWet al. Clinicopathological Differences in Signet Ring Cell Adenocarcinoma Between Early and Advanced Gastric Cancer. Gastric Cancer: Off J Int Gastric Cancer Assoc Jpn Gastric Cancer Assoc (2019) 22(2):255–63. doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0860-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KimBSKimBSOhSTYookJH. Signet Ring Cell Type and Other Histologic Types: Differing Clinical Course and Prognosis in T1 Gastric Cancer. Surg (US) (2014) 155(6):1030–5. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.08.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  KimDYParkYKJooJKRyuSYKimYJKimSKet al. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. ANZ J Surg (2004) 74(12):1060–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-1433.2004.03268.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  KimHMPakKHChungMJChoJHHyungWJNohSHet al. Early Gastric Cancer of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Is More Amenable to Endoscopic Treatment Than is Early Gastric Cancer of Poorly Differentiated Tubular Adenocarcinoma in Select Tumor Conditions. Surg Endoscopy (2011) 25(9):3087–93. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1674-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KimJPKimSCYangHK. Prognostic Significance of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. Surg Oncol (1994) 3(4):221–7. doi: 10.1016/0960-7404(94)90037-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KimYHKimJHKimHKimHLeeYCLeeSKet al. Is the Recent WHO Histological Classification for Gastric Cancer Helpful for Application to Endoscopic Resection? Gastric Cancer: Off J Int Gastric Cancer Assoc Jpn Gastric Cancer Assoc (2016) 19(3):869–75. doi: 10.1007/s10120-015-0538-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KongPWuRYangCGengQLiuJChenSet al. Prognostic Impact of the Signet Ring Cell Type in Node-Negative Gastric Cancer. Sci Rep (2016) 6:26313. doi: 10.1038/srep26313

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KunisakiCShimadaHNomuraMMatsudaGOtsukaYAkiyamaH. Therapeutic Strategy for Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. Br J Surg (2004) 91(10):1319–24. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KwonCHKimYKLeeSKimAParkHJChoiYet al. Gastric Poorly Cohesive Carcinoma: A Correlative Study of Mutational Signatures and Prognostic Significance Based on Histopathological Subtypes. Histopathology (2018) 72(4):556–68. doi: 10.1111/his.13383

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LaiJFXuWNNohSHLuWQ. Effect of World Health Organization (WHO) Histological Classification on Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence in Early Gastric Cancer. Med Sci Monitor (2016) 22:3147–53. doi: 10.12659/MSM.897311

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LeeISLeeSParkYSGongCSYookJHKimBS. Applicability of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Undifferentiated Early Gastric Cancer: Mixed Histology of Poorly Differentiated Adenocarcinoma and Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Is a Worse Predictive Factor of Nodal Metastasis. Surg Oncol (2017) 26(1):8–12. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.12.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LeeJHChoiIJKookMCNamBHKimYWRyuKW. Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients With Early Gastric Cancer and Signet Ring Cell Histology. Br J Surg (2010) 97(5):732–6. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LeeSHJeeSRKimJHSeolSY. Intramucosal Gastric Cancer: The Rate of Lymph Node Metastasis in Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma is as Low as That in Well-Differentiated Adenocarcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2015) 27(2):170–4. doi: 10.1097/meg.0000000000000258

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LiCKimSLaiJFHyungWJChoiWHChoiSHet al. Advanced Gastric Carcinoma With Signet Ring Cell Histology. Oncology (2007) 72(1-2):64–8. doi: 10.1159/000111096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LiHHuoZBChenSBLiHWuDCZhaiTSet al. Feasibility Study on Expanded Indication for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Intramucosal Poorly Differentiated Early Gastric Cancer. World J Gastroenterol (2016) 22(29):6736–41. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i29.6736

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  LuMYangZFengQYuMZhangYMaoCet al. The Characteristics and Prognostic Value of Signet Ring Cell Histology in Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 2199 Consecutive Patients. Medicine (2016) 95(27):e4052. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000004052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NakamuraROmoriTMayanagiSIrinoTWadaNKawakuboHet al. Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis in Undifferentiated-Type Mucosal Gastric Carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol (2019) 17:32. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1571-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  NamMJOhSJOhCAKimDHBaeYSChoiMGet al. Frequency and Predictive Factors of Lymph Node Metastasis in Mucosal Cancer. J Gastric Cancer (2010) 10(4):162–7. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2010.10.4.162

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  OtsujiEYamaguchiTSawaiKTakahashiT. Characterization of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach. J Surg Oncol (1998) 67(4):216–20. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(199804)67:4<216::Aid-jso2>3.0.Co;2-b

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ParkJMJangYJKimJHParkSSParkSHKimSJet al. Gastric Cancer Histology: Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Prognostic Value. J Surg Oncol (2008) 98(7):520–5. doi: 10.1002/jso.21150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  ShimJHSongKYKimHHHanSUKimMCHyungWJet al. Signet Ring Cell Histology Is Not an Independent Predictor of Poor Prognosis After Curative Resection for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Analysis by the KLASS Group. Medicine (2014) 93(27):e136. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000000136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  TaghaviSJayarajanSNDaveyAWillisAI. Prognostic Significance of Signet Ring Gastric Cancer. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol (2012) 30(28):3493–8. doi: 10.1200/jco.2012.42.6635

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  TangCTChenYZengC. Prognostic Analysis of Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma and Mucinous Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Competing Risk Analysis. Aging (2020) 12:22059–77. doi: 10.18632/aging.104048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  TongJHSunZWangZNZhaoYHHuangBJLiKet al. Early Gastric Cancer With Signet-Ring Cell Histologic Type: Risk Factors of Lymph Node Metastasis and Indications of Endoscopic Surgery. Surgery (2011) 149(3):356–63. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  WangJMZhouLYLinSRDingSG. Characteristics and Risk Factors of Lymphatic Metastasis in Early Gastric Cancer. Zhonghua nei ke za zhi [Chinese J Internal Med J (2010) 49(4):297–300.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  YoonHJKimYHKimJHKimHKimHParkJJet al. Are New Criteria for Mixed Histology Necessary for Endoscopic Resection in Early Gastric Cancer? Pathol Res Pract (2016) 212(5):410–4. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2016.02.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ZhangMZhuGZhangHGaoHXueY. Clinicopathologic Features of Gastric Carcinoma With Signet Ring Cell Histology. J Gastroint Surg (2010) 14(4):601–6. doi: 10.1007/s11605-009-1127-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ZhaoBLuHLuoRBaoSMeiDXuHet al. Different Clinicopathologic Features and Prognostic Significance of Signet Ring Cell Histology in Early and Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients. Clinics Res Hepatol Gastroenterol (2021) 45(1):101454. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2020.05.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ZhuZLShiHPBeeharryMKFengTNYanMYuanFet al. Expanding the Indication of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Undifferentiated Early Gastric Cancer Is Safe or Not? Asian J Surg (2020) 43(4):526–31. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.08.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  ZouYWuLYangYShenXZhuC. Risk Factors of Tumor Invasion and Node Metastasis in Early Gastric Cancer With Undifferentiated Component: A Multicenter Retrospective Study on Biopsy Specimens and Clinical Data. Ann Trans Med (2020) 8(6):360. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.42

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  ZuHWangHLiCXueY. Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Prognostic Value of Various Histological Types in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol (2014) 7(9):5692–700.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  EllithiMElnairRAbdullahHM. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach: A Retrospective Analysis of SEER Database. J Clin Oncol (2020) 38(15):suppl: e16572. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e16572

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  PernotSVoronTPerkinsGLagorce-PagesCBergerATaiebJ. Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach: Impact on Prognosis and Specific Therapeutic Challenge. World J Gastroenterol (2015) 21(40):11428–38. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i40.11428

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  MatsuiMKojimaOKawakamiSUeharaYTakahashiT. The Prognosis of Patients With Gastric Cancer Possessing Sex Hormone Receptors. Surg Today (1992) 22(5):421–5. doi: 10.1007/bf00308791

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  KimHWKimJHLimBJKimHKimHParkJJet al. Sex Disparity in Gastric Cancer: Female Sex Is a Poor Prognostic Factor for Advanced Gastric Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol (2016) 23(13):4344–51. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5448-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  FitzgeraldRCHardwickRHuntsmanDCarneiroFGuilfordPBlairVet al. Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer: Updated Consensus Guidelines for Clinical Management and Directions for Future Research. J Med Genet (2010) 47(7):436–44. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2009.074237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  SugiharaHHattoriTFukudaMFujitaS. Cell Proliferation and Differentiation in Intramucosal and Advanced Signet Ring Cell Carcinomas of the Human Stomach. Virchows Pathol Anat Histopathol (1987) 411(2):117–27. doi: 10.1007/bf00712735

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2010 (Ver. 3). Gastric Cancer: Off J Int Gastric Cancer Assoc Jpn Gastric Cancer Assoc (2011) 14(2):113–23. doi: 10.1007/s10120-011-0042-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  KwakDSMinYWLeeJHKangSHJangSHLeeHet al. Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer With Undifferentiated-Type Histology: A Clinical Simulation Using a non- Selected Surgical Cohort. Gut Liver (2018) 12(3):263–70. doi: 10.5009/gnl17247

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  JiangLMaZYeXKangWYuJ. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Gastric Cancer. World J Surg Oncol (2021) 19(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12957-021-02157-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LiYZhuZMaFXueLTianY. Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: Current Management and Future Challenges. Cancer Manage Res (2020) 12:7973–81. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S268032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  TurgeonMKGamboaACRupjiMLeeRMSwitchenkoJMEl-RayesBFet al. Should Signet Ring Cell Histology Alter the Treatment Approach for Clinical Stage I Gastric Cancer? Ann Surg Oncol (2021) 28(1):97–105. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08714-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ShuYZhangWHouQZhaoLZhangSZhouJet al. Prognostic Significance of Frequent CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 Fusion in Gastric Signet-Ring Cell Cancer. Nat Commun (2018) 9(1):2447. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04907-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  HultmanBMahtemeHSundbomMLjungmanMLarssonRNygrenP. Benchmarking of Gastric Cancer Sensitivity to Anti-Cancer Drugs Ex Vivo as a Basis for Drug Selection in Systemic and Intraperitoneal Therapy. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR (2014) 33(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s13046-014-0110-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar