Gastric Cancer

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 723–730 | Cite as

Gastric lymphatic flows may change before and after endoscopic submucosal dissection: in vivo porcine survival models

  • Kyoko Nohara
  • Osamu GotoEmail author
  • Hiroya Takeuchi
  • Motoki Sasaki
  • Tadateru Maehata
  • Naohisa Yahagi
  • Yuko Kitagawa
Original Article


Background and study aim

Standard gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy is recommended following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) due to the risk of lymph-node metastasis for resected cancers. However, when lymphatic flows remain unchanged after ESD, a minimally invasive function-preserving surgery based on the sentinel node (SN) concept may be applicable. In this study, using porcine survival models, we aimed to investigate whether gastric lymphatic flows were modified following ESD.


Twelve pigs, each with one simulating lesion 3 cm in size, were used. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluid was endoscopically injected into the submucosa in four quadrants surrounding the lesion. Following laparoscopic observation of lymphatic flows, the lesions were resected by ESD. After 4 weeks, ICG fluid was injected in four quadrants surrounding the scar and lymphatic flows were observed in the same manner as the initial procedure. The distribution of lymphatic flows, including stained SNs, was compared.


In ten lesions (83.3%), the distribution of flows remained unchanged. However, in one lesion, the flow along the right gastric epiploic artery (R-GEA) disappeared on the lesser curvature of the middle stomach. In addition, in one lesion, the flow along R-GEA emerged on the lesser curvature of the lower stomach.


Our study revealed that, despite ESD, lymphatic flows remained unchanged in most parts of the stomach. The SN concept may be applied after ESD, except for lesions on the lesser curvature. However, in the case of the lesser curvature, special care must be given to the SN concept.


Sentinel lymph node Early gastric cancer Endoscopic submucosal dissection 



This study was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan in 2015–2017 (Grant No. 15K09061).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

All institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.

Human/animal rights

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Laboratory Animal Center at Keio University School of Medicine (IRB no.14067). This article does not contain any studies with human performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines. Gastric Cancer. 2014;ver. 4:2017;20(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An JY, Baik YH, Choi MG, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S. Predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer with submucosal invasion: analysis of a single institutional experience. Ann Surg. 2007;246(5):749–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sunagawa H, Kinoshita T, Kaito A, Shibasaki H, Kaneko K, Ochiai A, et al. Additional surgery for non-curative resection after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric cancer: a retrospective analysis of 200 cases. Surg Today. 2017;47(2):202–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies J, Johnston D, Sue-Ling H, Young S, May J, Griffith J, et al. Total or subtotal gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma? A study of quality of life. World J Surg. 1998;22(10):1048–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamashita K, Kurokawa Y, Yamamoto K, Hirota M, Kawabata R, Mikami J, et al. Risk factors for poor compliance with adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(9):2639–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    An JY, Min JS, Lee YJ, Jeong SH, Hur H, Han SU, et al. Which factors are important for successful sentinel node navigation surgery in gastric cancer patients? Analysis from the SENORITA prospective multicenter feasibility quality control trial. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:1732571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitagawa Y, Fujii H, Mukai M, Kubota T, Ando N, Watanabe M, et al. The role of the sentinel lymph node in gastrointestinal cancer. Surg Clin N Am. 2000;80(6):1799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitagawa Y, Takeuchi H, Takagi Y, Natsugoe S, Terashima M, Murakami N, et al. Sentinel node mapping for gastric cancer: a prospective multicenter trial in Japan. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(29):3704–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takahashi N, Nimura H, Fujita T, Mitsumori N, Shiraishi N, Kitano S, et al. Laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery for early gastric cancer: a prospective multicenter trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402(1):27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, Economou JS, Cagle LA, Storm FK, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992;127(4):392–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takeuchi H, Kitagawa Y. Minimally invasive function-preserving surgery based on sentinel node concept in early gastric cancer. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayanagi S, Takeuchi H, Kamiya S, Niihara M, Nakamura R, Takahashi T, et al. Suitability of sentinel node mapping as an index of metastasis in early gastric cancer following endoscopic resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):2987–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miwa K, Kinami S, Taniguchi K, Fushida S, Fujimura T, Nonomura A. Mapping sentinel nodes in patients with early-stage gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2003;90(2):178–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kinami S, Fujimura T, Ojima E, Fushida S, Ojima T, Funaki H, et al. PTD classification: proposal for a new classification of gastric cancer location based on physiological lymphatic flow. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(4):320–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yahagi N, Uraoka T, Ida Y, Hosoe N, Nakamura R, Kitagawa Y, Ogata H, Hibi T. Endoscopic submucosal dissestion using the flex and the dual knives. Tech Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;13:74–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Yamada K, Sano T, et al. Investigation of the lymphatic stream of the stomach in gastric cancer with solitary lymph node metastasis. World J Surg. 2009;33(6):1235–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takeuchi H, Goto O, Yahagi N, Kitagawa Y. Function-preserving gastrectomy based on the sentinel node concept in early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(Suppl 1):53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aoyama J, Kawakubo H, Goto O, Nakahara T, Mayanagi S, Fukuda K, et al. Potential for local resection with sentinel node basin dissection for early gastric cancer based on the distribution of primary sites. Gastric Cancer. 2018;1:1–6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hwang SE, Cho BH, Hirai I, Kim HT, Kim JH, Fujimiya M, et al. Topographical anatomy of Spiegel’s lobe and its adjacent organs in mid-term fetuses: its implication on the development of the lesser sac and adult morphology of the upper abdomen. Clin Anat. 2010;23(6): 712–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doom M, de Rooster H, van Bergen T, Gielen I, Kromhout K, Simoens P, et al. Morphology of the canine omentum part 1: arterial landmarks that define the omentum. Anat Histol Embryol. 2016;45(1):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao Z, Liu S, Li Z, Hou J, Wang Z, Ma X, et al. Sectional anatomy of the peritoneal reflections of the upper abdomen in the coronal plane. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(4):430–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunobe S, Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10(3):167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tokunaga M, Hiki N, Ohyama S, Nunobe S, Miki A, Fukunaga T, et al. Effects of reconstruction methods on a patient’s quality of life after a proximal gastrectomy: subjective symptoms evaluation using questionnaire survey. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009;394(4):637–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arantes V, Uedo N, Pedrosa MS, Tomita Y. Clinical relevance of aberrant polypoid nodule scar after endoscopic submucosal dissection. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;8(17):628–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horii J, Goto O, Shimoda M, Sasaki M, Fujimoto A, Ochiai Y, et al. Which part of a porcine stomach is suitable as an animal training model for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection? Endoscopy. 2016;48(2):188–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyoko Nohara
    • 1
    • 5
  • Osamu Goto
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Hiroya Takeuchi
    • 1
    • 4
  • Motoki Sasaki
    • 2
  • Tadateru Maehata
    • 2
  • Naohisa Yahagi
    • 2
  • Yuko Kitagawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer CenterKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of GastroenterologyNippon Medical SchoolTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Second Department of SurgeryHamamatsu University School of MedicineShizuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations