Distal Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Time for a Shared Research Agenda

  • Marnix JansenEmail author
  • Nicholas A. WrightEmail author
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 908)


The key insight that sparked Darwin’s theory of descent with modification was that he compared and contrasted differences between living and extinct species across time and space. He likely arrived on this theory in large part through his culinary experiences, set against the background of the rugged Patagonian landscape of Southern Argentina. We feel that further integration of research into gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma may benefit both fields and similarly lead to a coherent understanding of cancer progression in the upper gastrointestinal tract across time and space. Although the environmental trigger differs between carcinogenesis of the stomach and distal esophagus, there remain many important lessons to be learned from comparing precursor stages, such as intestinal metaplasia, across anatomic borders. This analysis will absolutely require detailed sampling within and between these related species, but most importantly we need higher resolution clinical phenotyping to relate genomic differences to drivers of morphologic evolution. In the end, this may provide us with a new phylogeny showing key differences between esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma.


Gastric Cancer Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Early Gastric Cancer Gastric Adenocarcinoma Intestinal Metaplasia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Shaheen NJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2277–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pouw RE, et al. Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation combined with endoscopic resection for Barrett’s esophagus with early neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:23–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Network TCGAR. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinomasupplementary materials. Nature. 2014;513:202–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cristescu R et al. Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med 2015;21:449–56.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stachler MD, et al. Paired exome analysis of Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1047–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross-Innes CS, et al. Whole-genome sequencing provides new insights into the clonal architecture of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1038–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeh JM, Hur C, Ward Z, Schrag D, Goldie SJ. Gastric adenocarcinoma screening and prevention in the era of new biomarker and endoscopic technologies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut. 2015. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308588.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Zimaity HMT, Ota H, Graham DY, Akamatsu T, Katsuyama T. Patterns of gastric atrophy in intestinal type gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:1428–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iyer G, et al. Genome sequencing identifies a basis for everolimus sensitivity. Science. 2012. doi: 10.1126/science.1226344.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waddell N, et al. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2015;518:495–501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Cancer InstituteUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Barts Cancer InstituteBarts and the London School of Medicine and DentistryLondonUK

Personalised recommendations