Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: the prognostic usefulness of ascites detected by endoscopic ultrasound

Current perspectives on the diversification of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has undergone significant advancements since it was first reported in 1992. Initially focused on the pancreas, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has now been extended to encompass all organs proximal to the gastrointestinal system. Recently, a novel fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle with an end-cut tip was developed, allowing for the collection of specimens suitable for histological assessment, a feat hard to achieve with traditional needles. The FNB needle holds promise for applications in immunohistochemistry staining and genetics evaluation, and it has the potential to yield specimens of comparable quality to core needle biopsy during percutaneous puncture, especially for lesions beyond the pancreas, such as lymph nodes. This review focuses on the efficacy of EUS-FNA/FNB for extended target regions, specifically lymph nodes, spleen, adrenal gland, and ascites. The indications for EUS-FNA have greatly expanded beyond the pancreas over the years, and future improvements and innovations in puncture needles will allow for the collection of higher-quality specimens, which is expected to play a significant part in personalized cancer treatment.

Preoperative EUS vs. PET-CT Evaluation of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophagogastric Cancer and Its Correlation with Survival

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study was to investigate whether Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) and Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) restaging can predict survival in upper gastrointestinal tract adenocarcinomas and to assess their accuracy when compared to pathology.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on all patients who underwent EUS for staging of gastric or esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2021. EUS and PET-CT were performed, and preoperative TNM restaging was conducted using both procedures within 21 days prior to surgery. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients (74.7% male) were included in the study. The accuracy of EUS for distinguishing between T1-T2 and T3-T4 tumors after neoadjuvant therapy was 66.7% (95% CI: 50.3-77.8%), and for N staging, the accuracy was 70.8% (95% CI: 51.8-81.8%). Regarding PET-CT, the accuracy for N positivity was 60.4% (95% CI: 46.3-73%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant correlation between positive lymph nodes on restaging EUS and PET-CT with DFS. Multivariate COX regression analysis identified N restaging with EUS and PET-CT, as well as the Charlson comorbidity index, as correlated factors with DFS. Positive lymph nodes on EUS and PET-CT were predictors of OS. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the independent risk factors for OS were found to be the Charlson comorbidity index, T response by EUS, and male sex.

CONCLUSION

Both EUS and PET-CT are valuable tools for determining the preoperative stage of esophago-gastric cancer. Both techniques can predict survival, with preoperative N staging and response to neoadjuvant therapy assessed by EUS being the main predictors.

Multivisceral Resection for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) presents a therapeutic dilemma, particularly as it often involves adjacent organs through desmoplasia or true pathologic invasion. To obtain a margin-negative resection, these tumors require en bloc gastrectomy with multivisceral resection (G+MVR), and contention remains regarding its safety and oncologic benefit.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to retrospectively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with LAGC treated in the USA between 2004 and 2016. Associations with margin status and perioperative outcomes were calculated using logistic regression. Survival was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression and the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Overall, 785 pathologic stage T4b (pT4b) patients diagnosed with LAGC underwent gastrectomy (n = 438) or G+MVR (n = 347). There was no association between G+MVR and short- or long-term mortality. Positive resection margins (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.40-2.03), the presence of nodal disease (HRs 1.46-1.50), treatment at a high-volume center (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85), and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.80) were independently associated with overall survival. Diffuse-type histology was associated with higher rates of an R1 resection (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.20-5.87). Perioperative and long-term survival metrics were comparable between patients with pT4a and pT4b LAGC who underwent a margin-negative G+MVR. Undergoing a margin-negative G+MVR imparted a 6-month survival benefit over non-curative gastrectomy alone (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates the safety and long-term feasibility of G+MVR for disease clearance in well-selected patients with LAGC, and we advocate for their referral to high-volume centers for optimal care.

A Meta-Analysis And Systematic Review Of Accuracy Of Endoscopic Ultrasound For N Staging Of Gastric Cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is widely used as a staging modality for gastric cancer. However, the results of studies on the use of EUS for N staging in gastric cancer vary. This study aimed at studying the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS for N staging of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Published studies were identified through searching the MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, SpringerLink and ScienceDirect databases. A bivariate random effect model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC) based on the pooled data was also computed.

RESULTS

Fifty studies (5223 patients) were included in this analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of EUS for N staging were 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.85), 0.68 (0.63 to 0.73), 2.6 (2.2 to 3.0), 0.27 (0.22 to 0.32), and 10 (8 to 12), respectively. The area under the HSROC was 0.83.

CONCLUSION

The EUS may provide a clinically useful tool to guide physicians in the N staging of gastric cancer. However, physicians must note that the EUS has a relatively low specificity.

Clinical significance of computed tomography-detected ascites in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastases

Patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) are generally considered incurable; therefore, the presence of PM is a critical factor in deciding between palliative surgery and curative resection as a therapeutic strategy. Previous studies have not determined the predictive value of ascites detected on computed tomography (CT) for the presence of PM. We aimed to analyze the factors that are associated with PM in patients with CT-detected ascites.A total of 2207 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer between 2004 and 2013 were identified. Eleven patients with liver cirrhosis or chronic renal insufficiency with ascites and 57 patients who received previous treatment were excluded. Ninety-eight patients who had definite evidence of distant metastasis or PM on CT and 64 patients who did not undergo surgery were excluded. A total of 91 patients were enrolled in the study to analyze the association between CT-detected ascites and surgically confirmed PM.Seventy-six patients underwent curative resection and 15 patients underwent palliative surgery. Twelve patients exhibited peritoneal seeding and 37 patients showed regional lymph node metastasis. Regional lymph node metastasis, advanced gastric cancer, undifferentiated pathology, and the amount of ascites were significantly associated with PM. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified the amount of ascites to be an independent risk factor for the presence of PM.Regional lymph node metastasis, advanced gastric cancer, undifferentiated pathology, and the amount of ascites were associated with PM. The amount of ascites was found to be an independent risk factor for PM.

Consistency mapping of 16 lymph node stations in gastric cancer by CT-based vessel-guided delineation of 255 patients

In order to refine the location and metastasis-risk density of 16 lymph node stations of gastric cancer for neoadjuvant radiotherapy, we retrospectively reviewed the initial images and pathological reports of 255 gastric cancer patients with lymphatic metastasis. Metastatic lymph nodes identified in the initial computed tomography images were investigated by two radiologists with gastrointestinal specialty. A circle with a diameter of 5 mm was used to identify the central position of each metastatic lymph node, defined as the LNc (the central position of the lymph node). The LNc was drawn at the equivalent location on the reference images of a standard patient based on the relative distances to the same reference vessels and the gastric wall using a Monaco® version 5.0 workstation. The image manipulation software Medi-capture was programmed for image analysis to produce a contour and density atlas of 16 lymph node stations. Based on a total of 2846 LNcs contoured (31-599 per lymph node station), we created a density distribution map of 16 lymph node drainage stations of the stomach on computed tomography images, showing the detailed radiographic delineation of each lymph node station as well as high-risk areas for lymph node metastasis. Our mapping can serve as a template for the delineation of gastric lymph node stations when defining clinical target volume in pre-operative radiotherapy for gastric cancer.

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent additional gastrectomy after incomplete endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer

To evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics and factors that lead to residual tumors in patients who underwent additional gastrectomy for incomplete endoscopic resection (ER) for early gastric cancer (EGC).Between 2003 and 2013, the medical records of patients underwent additional gastrectomy after incomplete ER were retrospectively reviewed. Those diagnosed with the presence of histologic residual tumor in specimens obtained by gastrectomy were assigned to the residual tumor (RT) group (n = 47); those diagnosed with the absence of histologic residual tumor were assigned to the nonresidual tumor (NRT) group (n = 33).In the multivariate analysis, endoscopic piecemeal resection, Helicobacter pylori infection, large tumor size (>2 cm), and both (lateral and vertical) marginal involvement were independent factors of the presence of residual tumor in additional gastrectomy after incomplete resection ER for EGC and the rates of independent factors were significantly higher in the RT group than in the NRT group (P < 0.05).Before ER, preexamination to accurately determine the GC invasion depth and the presence of LN metastasis is very important. During ER, surgeons should attempt to perform en bloc resection and to resect the mucous membrane with adequate safety margins to prevent tumor invasion into the lateral and vertical margins.

The role of endoscopic ultrasound on the preoperative T staging of gastric cancer: A retrospective study

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is used for preoperative assessment of gastric cancer. However, recent studies suggested that EUS staging accuracy is lower than previously thought. We aimed to assess EUS efficacy and image characteristics in preoperative gastric cancer T staging.A retrospective review of clinical and imaging features of 232 gastric carcinoma patients who underwent preoperative EUS assessment of T stage was performed. Only cases with tumor-free resection margin status and no metastases were enrolled. Comparisons of preoperative EUS and postoperative histopathological stagings were also performed to identify vital EUS image features for evaluating gastric carcinoma.EUS accuracy for T staging was 64.2% (149/232) with the highest accuracy for T3 (75.0%). Enlarged lymph nodes, well differentiated histological type and Borrmann IV type were associated with diagnostic accuracy in predicting tumor invasion. Although no factors were associated with overstaging, circumferential lesions ≥1/2, signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, and Borrmann IV type had significantly higher risks of understaging. Gastric wall outer edge irregularity was also an indicator of serosal involvement with a sensitivity of 82.0%. The pancreas and colon were more frequent disease extension sites than previously predicted.Although EUS is likely the best and most accurate option that we have used to stage gastric cancer, the finding that factors including circumferential lesions, signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, and Borrmann IV type carcinoma were more frequently related to incorrect staging warrants attention.

Correlation between preoperative endoscopic ultrasound and surgical pathology staging of gastric adenocarcinoma: A single institution retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence validates the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) staging has been proposed as a useful adjunct in this setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients treated at our institution for gastric adenocarcinoma between July 2005 and January 2014. We identified patients referred for EUS before surgery as part of a prospective treatment plan. Histopathologic staging was compared to EUS staging, with a focus on T- and N-stage. Agreement between the two modalities was examined using kappa-statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 614 patients with biopsy-proven gastric adenocarcinoma; 145 underwent curative-intent surgery. Surgical pathology and EUS results were available from 69 patients. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of T- and N-stage was 44.9% and 56.5%, respectively. EUS demonstrated greater concordance with histopathology at evaluating T-stage (κ = 0.3469) than N-stage (κ = 0.1316). EUS underestimated T- and N-stage in 40.8% and 30.4% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS seems to correlate poorly with pathology in the preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma. In the majority of inaccurate cases, EUS underestimates T-stage and N-stage, limiting its utility in the neoadjuvant setting.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is proposed as an accurate diagnostic device for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which is crucial to developing a correct therapeutic strategy and ultimately to providing patients with the best chance of cure. However, despite a number of studies addressing this issue, there is no consensus on the role of EUS in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To provide both a comprehensive overview and a quantitative analysis of the published data regarding the ability of EUS to preoperatively define the locoregional disease spread (i.e., primary tumor depth (T-stage) and regional lymph node status (N-stage)) in people with primary gastric carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic search to identify articles that examined the diagnostic accuracy of EUS (the index test) in the evaluation of primary gastric cancer depth of invasion (T-stage, according to the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system categories T1, T2, T3 and T4) and regional lymph node status (N-stage, disease-free (N0) versus metastatic (N+)) using histopathology as the reference standard. To this end, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Library (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, NIHR Prospero Register, MEDION, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), from 1988 to January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that met the following main inclusion criteria: 1) a minimum sample size of 10 patients with histologically-proven primary carcinoma of the stomach (target condition); 2) comparison of EUS (index test) with pathology evaluation (reference standard) in terms of primary tumor (T-stage) and regional lymph nodes (N-stage). We excluded reports with possible overlap with the selected studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors extracted a standard set of data, using a dedicated data extraction form. We assessed data quality using a standard procedure according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. We performed diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis using the hierarchical bivariate method.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 66 articles (published between 1988 and 2012) that were eligible according to the inclusion criteria. We collected the data on 7747 patients with gastric cancer who were staged with EUS. Overall the quality of the included studies was good: in particular, only five studies presented a high risk of index test interpretation bias and two studies presented a high risk of selection bias.For primary tumor (T) stage, results were stratified according to the depth of invasion of the gastric wall. The meta-analysis of 50 studies (n = 4397) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity of EUS in discriminating T1 to T2 (superficial) versus T3 to T4 (advanced) gastric carcinomas were 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.90) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) respectively. For the diagnostic capacity of EUS to distinguish T1 (early gastric cancer, EGC) versus T2 (muscle-infiltrating) tumors, the meta-analysis of 46 studies (n = 2742) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93) respectively. When we addressed the capacity of EUS to distinguish between T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers the meta-analysis of 20 studies (n = 3321) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.84) respectively. Finally, for the metastatic involvement of lymph nodes (N-stage), the meta-analysis of 44 studies (n = 3573) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.87) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), respectively.Overall, as demonstrated also by the Bayesian nomograms, which enable readers to calculate post-test probabilities for any target condition prevalence, the EUS accuracy can be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric cancer. However, it should be noted that between-study heterogeneity was not negligible: unfortunately, we could not identify any consistent source of the observed heterogeneity. Therefore, all accuracy measures reported in the present work and summarizing the available evidence should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, we must emphasize that the analysis of positive and negative likelihood values revealed that EUS diagnostic performance cannot be considered optimal either for disease confirmation or for exclusion, especially for the ability of EUS to distinguish T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers and positive versus negative lymph node status.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

By analyzing the data from the largest series ever considered, we found that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS might be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric carcinoma. However, the heterogeneity of the results warrants special caution, as well as further investigation for the identification of factors influencing the outcome of this diagnostic tool. Moreover, physicians should be warned that EUS performance is lower in diagnosing superficial tumors (T1a versus T1b) and lymph node status (positive versus negative). Overall, we observed large heterogeneity and its source needs to be understood before any definitive conclusion can be drawn about the use of EUS can be proposed in routine clinical settings.

CT volumetry for gastric carcinoma: association with TNM stage

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the feasibility of performing CT volumetry of gastric carcinoma (GC) and its correlation with TNM stage.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved retrospective study was performed on 153 patients who underwent a staging CT study for histologically confirmed GC. CT volumetry was performed by drawing regions of interest including abnormal thickening of the stomach wall. Reproducibility of tumour volume (Tvol) between two readers was assessed. Correlation between Tvol and TNM/peritoneal staging derived from histology/surgical findings was evaluated using ROC analysis and compared with CT evaluation of TNM/peritoneal staging.

RESULTS

Tvol was successfully performed in all patients. Reproducibility among readers was excellent (r = 0.97; P = 0.0001). The median Tvol of GC showed an incremental trend with T-stage (T1 = 27 ml; T2 = 32 ml; T3 = 53 ml and T4 = 121 ml, P < 0.01). Tvol predicted with good accuracy T-stage (≥T2:0.95; ≥T3:0.89 and T4:0.83, P = 0.0001), M-stage (0.87, P = 0.0001), peritoneal metastases (0.87, P = 0.0001) and final stage (≥stage 2:0.89; ≥stage 3:0.86 and stage 4:0.87, P = 0.0001), with moderate accuracy for N-stage (≥N1:0.75; ≥N2:0.74 and N3:0.75, P = 0.0001). Tvol was significantly (P < 0.05) more accurate than standard CT staging for prediction of T-stage, N3-stage, M-stage and peritoneal metastases.

CONCLUSION

CT volumetry may provide useful adjunct information for preoperative staging of GC.

KEY POINTS

CT volumetry of gastric carcinoma is feasible and reproducible. Tumour volume <19.4 ml predicts T1-stage gastric cancer with 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity (P = 0.0001). Tumour volume >95.7 ml predicts metastatic gastric cancer with 87% sensitivity and 78.5% specificity (P = 0.0001). CT volumetry may be a useful adjunct for staging gastric carcinoma.

Gastric carcinoma: imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response

Gastric carcinoma (GC) is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Surgical resection is the only cure available and is dependent on the GC stage at presentation, which incorporates depth of tumor invasion, extent of lymph node and distant metastases. Accurate preoperative staging is therefore essential for optimal surgical management with consideration of preoperative and/or postoperative chemotherapy. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) with its ability to assess tumor depth, nodal disease and metastases is the preferred technique for staging GC. Endoscopic ultrasonography is more accurate for assessing the depth of wall invasion in early cancer, but is limited in the assessment of advanced local or stenotic cancer and detection of distant metastases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), although useful for staging, is not proven to be effective. Positron emission tomography (PET) is most useful for detecting and characterizing distant metastases. Both MDCT and PET are useful for assessment of treatment response following preoperative chemotherapy and for detection of recurrence after surgical resection. This review article discusses the usefulness of imaging modalities for detecting, staging and assessing treatment response for GC and the potential role of newer applications including CT volumetry, virtual gastroscopy and perfusion CT in the management of GC.

Accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer with combined endoscopic ultrasonography and PET-CT

Accurate staging of gastric cancer is helpful to determine the most appropriate therapy, but no staging modality has been accepted as the standard. Objective is to evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonograph (EUS) combined with position emission tomography and computed tomograph (PET-CT) in gastric cancer staging. A total of 124 patients confirmed with gastric cancer were subjected to staging with EUS and PET-CT scanning. The detection rate of primary tumor was 99.2% by combination use of two modalities and 97.6% by EUS alone (p = 0.6219), but the detection rate was 90.3% (112 of 124) by PET-CT alone (compared with the combination, p = 0.0027; compared with EUS alone, p = 0.0299). The locoregional lymph node invasion was identified in 84/124 (67.7%) by combined PET-CT and EUS, which was obviously higher than that with EUS (52.4%) or PET-CT (43.5%) alone (p = 0.0194 and p = 0.0002, respectively). There was no statistical difference in identification of celiac axis lymph node metastasis among three methods, but the combined examination or PET-CT alone was more effective than EUS alone in the detection of distant metastases (all p < 0.01). Furthermore, the combined EUS and PET-CT was more optimal than using EUS or PET-CT alone in the accurate T and N staging and the effect on change of treatment. The present study indicates that the combination of EUS and PET-CT is an ideal modality in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer and it provides beneficial guidance for the treatment of gastric cancer.

[Significance of free perigastric fluid detected by echoendoscopy in patients with gastric cancer]

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic value of free perigastric fluid identified by echoendoscopy in patients with gastric cancer and to establish the factors related to the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively included 100 patients with a histological diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma referred for echoendoscopy. A positive result was defined as the echoendoscopic identification of free perigastric fluid. This result was compared with the final study based on exploratory laparoscopy-laparotomy. The histological and endoscopic characteristics were compared with the final result.

RESULTS

Free perigastric fluid was found in 21 patients (21%). Among these, 15 (71%) showed peritoneal carcinomatosis, confirmed by laparoscopy (12 patients) or echoendoscopy-guided fine-needle-aspiration biopsy (three patients). In seven of the 79 patients (8%) not showing the presence of ascites, peritoneal implants were identified by exploratory laparoscopy-laparotomy. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of free fluid in the diagnosis of carcinomatosis was 68%, 92%, 71%, 91% and 87%, respectively. No histologic or endoscopic factors related to the malignancy of echoendoscopically-detected fluid were identified.

CONCLUSION

In patients with gastric cancer, free perigastric fluid identified by echoendoscopy is an important predictive factor of peritoneal carcinomatosis and may have significant implications in the management of these patients.

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in preoperative staging of gastric cancer--demand and reality

Exact pretherapeutic staging is considered to be essential for decision-making in the therapeutic algorithm of gastric cancer. THE AIM OF THE STUDY was to characterize the role and value of EUS in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of gastric cancer in daily surgical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thousand one hundred thirty nine patients with primary gastric cancer from 80 hospitals of each profile of care were enrolled in this systematic clinical prospective multicenter observational study over a time period of 12 months. The characteristics of the diagnostic management, in particular, of EUS were documented. The preoperative EUS findings were compared with the T stage (T1 to T4) and the N category (N+ or N-) revealed by the histopathologic investigation of the surgical specimen. By the mean of χ² test, the impact of EUS on the therapeutic decision-making was determined.

RESULTS

Pretherapeutic EUS was only performed in 27.4% (n=312) of all patients. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy for the T stage was 42.6% in average. The subgroup analysis showed the following results: T1, 31.5%; T2, 42.6%; T3, 65.2%; T4, 17.6%. The correct predictive value of the N category was 71.3% reaching a sensitivity of 69.7% and a specificity of 73.3%. Overstaging was observed in 45.8%, understaging in only 10.8%. Additional diagnostic information by EUS was only provided in 4.7% of subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study indicates the variability, limited reliability and only moderate acceptance of EUS in diagnosing gastric cancer in daily practice. In particular, the prediction of the T stage does not reach the data reported in the literature, which were mostly achieved in specific EUS studies.

Low accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for detailed T staging in gastric cancer

Background

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for preoperative staging of gastric cancer varies. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of EUS tumor (T) and node (N) staging, and to identify the histopathological factors influencing accuracy based on the detailed tumor depth of gastric cancer.

Methods

In total, 309 patients with gastric cancer with confirmed pathological staging underwent EUS examination for preoperative staging at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Korea, between January and December 2009. The T and N staging of EUS and the pathologic report were compared.

Results

The overall accuracies of EUS for T stage and the detailed T stages were 70.2% and 43.0%, respectively. In detailed stage, tumors greater than 50 mm in diameter were significantly associated with T overstaging (odds ratio (OR) = 2.094). The overall accuracy of EUS for N staging was 71.2%. Tumor size (20 mm ≤ size < 50 mm, OR = 4.389; and 50 mm ≤ size, OR = 8.170), cross-sectional tumor location (circumferential, OR = 4.381) and tumor depth (submucosa, OR = 3.324; muscular propria, OR = 6.923; sub-serosa, OR = 4.517; and serosa-exposed, OR = 6.495) were significant factors affecting incorrect nodal detection.

Conclusions

Careful attention is required during EUS examination of large-sized gastric cancers to increase accuracy, especially for T staging.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of EUS for preoperative staging for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Accurate preoperative staging is important in determining the appropriate treatment of gastric cancer. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been introduced as a staging modality. However, reported test characteristics for EUS in gastric cancer vary. Our purpose in this study was to identify, synthesize, and evaluate findings from all articles on the performance of EUS in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 1998 to 1 December 2009. All search titles and abstracts were independently rated for relevance by a minimum of two reviewers. Meta-analysis for the performance of EUS was analyzed by calculating agreement (Kappa statistic), and pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for all EUS examinations, using histopathology as the reference standard. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. EUS pooled accuracy for T staging was 75% with a moderate Kappa (0.52). EUS was most accurate for T3 disease, followed by T4, T1, and T2. EUS pooled accuracy for N staging was 64%, sensitivity was 74%, and specificity was 80%. There was significant heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses found that annual EUS volume was not associated with EUS T and N staging accuracy (P = 0.836, 0.99, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EUS is a moderately accurate technique that seems to describe advanced T stage (T3 and T4) better than N or less advanced T stage. Stratifying by EUS annual volume did not affect EUS performance in staging gastric cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in hollow viscus cancer

Accurate cancer staging is essential in patients with hollow viscus malignancy to decide therapeutic modalities. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered as the best modality for local staging of hollow viscus cancer. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a minimally invasive and effective sampling method. EUS-FNA should be applied when positive diagnosis of malignancy can possibly change the choice of therapeutic options. EUS in conjunction with EUS-FNA can optimize stage-directed therapy which is helpful in selecting minimally invasive treatment option including endoscopic treatment and avoiding unnecessary surgery in advanced cases.

EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of EUS in the locoregional staging of gastric carcinoma is undefined.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to comprehensively review and quantitatively summarize the available evidence on the staging performance of EUS.

DESIGN

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases for relevant studies published until July 2010.

SETTING

Formal meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy parameters was performed by using a bivariate random-effects model.

PATIENTS

Fifty-four studies enrolling 5601 patients with gastric cancer undergoing disease staging with EUS were eligible for the meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

EUS staging accuracy across eligible studies was measured by computing overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

RESULTS

EUS can differentiate T1-2 from T3-4 gastric cancer with high accuracy, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93), 9.8 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8), 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11-0.21), and 65 (95% CI, 41-105), respectively. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of EUS for lymph node status is less reliable, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88), 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6-5.4), 0.37 (95% CI, 0.32-0.44), and 12 (95% CI, 9-16), respectively. Results regarding single T categories (including T1 substages) and Bayesian nomograms to calculate posttest probabilities for any target condition prevalence are also provided.

LIMITATIONS

Statistical heterogeneity was generally high; unfortunately, subgroup analysis did not identify a consistent source of the heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of EUS for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which can affect the therapeutic management of these patients. However, clinicians must be aware of the performance limits of this staging tool.

Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer are operation contraindications. Systematic review to provide an overview of imaging in predicting the status of liver and peritoneum pre-therapeutically is essential.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and the China Biological Medicine Databases. QUADAS was used for assessing the methodological quality of included studies and the bivariate model was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Totally 33 studies were included (8 US studies, 5 EUS studies, 22 CT studies, 2 MRI studies and 5 18F-FDG PET studies) and the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The result of meta-analysis showed that CT is the most sensitive imaging method [0.74 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85)] with a high rate of specificity [0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00)] in detecting hepatic metastasis, and EUS is the most sensitive imaging modality [0.34 (95% CI: 0.10-0.69) ] with a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99) in detecting peritoneal metastasis. Only two eligible MRI studies were identified and the data were not combined. The two studies found that MRI had both high sensitivity and specificity in detecting liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

US, EUS, CT and 18F-FDG PET did not obtain consistently high sensitivity and specificity in assessing liver and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer. The value of laparoscopy, PET/CT, DW-MRI, and new PET tracers such as 18F-FLT needs to be studied in future.

[Diagnostic imaging in oncology--evidence reviews for evidence based guidelines by the Agency of Quality for Medicine (ÄZQ)]

Within the context of the development of evidence-based oncology guidelines, the Agency for Quality in Medicine undertook evidence reviews for diagnostic imaging procedures. Systematic searches retrieved no randomised controlled trials, but only cohort studies and case series of mostly moderate quality. The identified studies provided only a restricted basis for the guideline recommendations as their validity was limited and only outcomes of diagnostic accuracy were examined. However, decision criteria for recommending diagnostic strategies significantly comprise judgements about required resources and availability of diagnostic imaging procedures. These criteria as well as patient out-comes were mostly implicit and should be explicated in future. In order to increase the relevance of evidence reviews for oncological diagnosis, high quality studies which examine resources and patient-centred outcomes for diagnostic strategies are required.

The usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer

OBJECTIVE

Gastric cancer can present as an exophytic lesion, diffuse infiltration of the gastric mucosa or even as a gastric ulcer, which can mimic a benign gastric ulcer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

176 patients with gastric ulcer were divided into two groups on the basis of the cause of ulcer. Benign gastric ulcer group consisted of 102 patients and malignant gastric ulcer group consisted of 74 patients. All patients were examined by radial scanning echoendoscope (Olympus GF-UM 2000).

RESULTS

For diagnosis of malignant gastric ulcer, the sensitivity of EUS is 83.8%, the specificity is 62.7% and the accuracy is 71.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that EUS is a useful examination in differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer. However, it also has certain limitation which may be solved with more newer EUS applications and development.

Survival in patients with pancreatic cancer after the diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA

BACKGROUND

The expected survival after the EUS-FNA diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases from pancreatic cancer is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To report overall and 1-year survival in these patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort series.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive subjects with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer from June 1998 and March 2008 in whom EUS-FNA of the liver or ascitic fluid confirmed hepatic metastases or malignant ascites.

INTERVENTIONS

Calculation of survival after diagnosis by using the Social Security Death Index.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Survival after EUS-FNA diagnosis of stage IV pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA identified liver metastases and malignant ascites from primary pancreatic cancer in 75 and 13 patients, respectively, and all 88 died during follow-up. For all 88 patients, the 1-year survival rate and median survival were 3.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-10.4%) and 82 days (range 2-754 days), respectively. The 1-year survival rates for those with liver metastases (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-12.1%]) and for those with malignant ascites (0% [95% CI, 0-24.7%]) were similar (P = 1.0). The median survival for patients with liver metastases of 83 days (range 2-754 days) was similar to that for those with malignant ascites (64 days; range 2-153 days) (P = .13). No clinical variable considered predicted survival of more than, less than, or 3 months.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective series with variable treatment for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pancreatic cancer, identification of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA is associated with a very poor prognosis.

Endosonography of high-grade intra-epithelial neoplasia/early cancer

Endosonography (EUS) is frequently used for staging of early malignant gastrointestinal lesions. High-grade intra-epithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and mucosal cancer have a very low risk for lymphatic metastasis and therefore are suitable for endoscopic therapy. In HGIN and early oesophageal and gastric cancer, high-frequency miniprobes can provide detailed imaging of the different layers. However, diagnostic accuracy differentiating between mucosal and submucosal disease is not sufficient, and therefore (diagnostic) endoscopic resection should be performed in all localisable lesions to detect submucosal cancer at risk for lymph node metastasis. EUS for lymph node staging is considered to be the method with the highest accuracy, especially compared with computed tomography.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound in gastric cancer surgery and endoscopic mucosal resectability

AIM: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for preoperative invasion depth of gastric cancer (T staging) and to evaluate the instructive significance of EUS in gastric cancer surgery and resectability of endoscopic mucosa.

METHODS: A total of 78 patients with pathologically confirmed gastric cancer were examined by EUS before operation. Furthermore, they underwent TNM staging, and the preoperative examination results were compared with post-operative pathological results.

RESULTS: Among the 78 patients, compared with post-operative pathological results, the overall accuracy of stage T of EUS was 69.2%, and the accuracy rates of T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 83.3%, 61.9%, 40.0% and 100%, respectively. Meanwhile, the sensibility to the prediction of operational respectability was up to 80.8%. Five cases with early gastric cancer (EGC) diagnosed by EUS had been confirmed by the operation. However, 1 case wiht gastric submucosa cancer was diagnosed as muscularis propria (MP) cancer by EUS. Resectability of gastric cancer at stage T4 was only 42.3% (11/26).

CONCLUSION: EUS bears a high accuracy rate to determine the invasion depth of gastric cancer. EUS does much favor to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) because EGC could be relatively accurately judged by EUS. While gastric cancer patients at stage T4 need to search new examination to confirm NM staging of gastric cancer, avoid surgery and choose a suitable therapeutic method.

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of lymph node status is of crucial importance for appropriate treatment planning and determining prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to systematically review the current role of imaging in assessing lymph node (LN) status in gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. The methodological quality and diagnostic performance of the included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Six abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) studies, 30 endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) studies, 10 multidetectorrow computed tomography (MDCT) studies, 3 conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, 4 (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) studies, and 1 FDG-PET/CT fusion study were included. In general, the included studies had moderate methodological quality. The sensitivity and specificity of AUS varied between 12.2% and 80.0% (median, 39.9%) and 56.3% and 100% (median, 81.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of EUS varied between 16.7% and 95.3% (median, 70.8%) and 48.4% and 100% (median, 84.6%). The sensitivity and specificity of MDCT varied between 62.5% and 91.9% (median, 80.0%) and 50.0% and 87.9% (median, 77.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of MRI varied between 54.6% and 85.3% (median, 68.8%) and 50.0% and 100% (median, 75.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET varied between 33.3% and 64.6% (median, 34.3%) and 85.7% and 97.0% (median, 93.2%). The sensitivity and specificity of the FDG-PET/CT fusion study were 54.7% and 92.2%. For all the imaging modalities, there were no significant differences between the mean sensitivities and specificities of high- and low-quality studies.

CONCLUSION

AUS, EUS, MDCT, conventional MRI, and FDG-PET cannot reliably be used to confirm or exclude the presence of LN metastasis. The performance of highresolution PET/CT fusion and functional MRI techniques still has to be determined.

EORTC-ROG expert opinion: radiotherapy volume and treatment guidelines for neoadjuvant radiation of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction and the stomach

PURPOSE

The Gastro-Intestinal Working Party of the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group (GIWP-ROG) developed guidelines for target volume definition in neoadjuvant radiation of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and the stomach.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Guidelines about the definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) are based on a systematic literature review of the location and frequency of local recurrences and lymph node involvement in adenocarcinomas of the GEJ and the stomach. Therefore, MEDLINE was searched up to August 2008. Guidelines concerning prescription, planning and treatment delivery are based on a consensus between the members of the GIWP-ROG.

RESULTS

In order to support a curative resection of GEJ and gastric cancer, an individualized preoperative treatment volume based on tumour location has to include the primary tumour and the draining regional lymph nodes area. Therefore we recommend to use the 2nd English Edition of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association which developed the concept of assigning tumours of the GEJ and the stomach to anatomically defined sub-sites corresponding respectively to a distinct lymphatic spread pattern.

CONCLUSION

The GIWP-ROG defined guidelines for preoperative irradiation of adenocarcinomas of the GEJ and the stomach to reduce variability in the framework of future clinical trials.

Outcome of unresected gastric cancer after laparoscopic diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis

BACKGROUND

Most gastric adenocarcinomas in western countries are locally advanced, and these tumours are often associated with metastatic spread at the time of diagnosis. It is controversial whether palliative surgery can improve symptom control in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the need of palliative procedures and survival in patients affected by gastric cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis managed without resection. Methods and materials After standard preoperative staging, 160 patients were diagnosed with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. Laparoscopy was performed in 107 patients (66.9%), finding peritoneal spread in 22 of them (21%). Seventeen of these patients were not submitted to any additional surgical procedure. Data regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality, need of endoscopic, percutaneous or surgical procedures to palliate symptoms, hospital stay and survival were collected. The same data were collected for the 6 non-resected patients who were diagnosed with carcinomatosis by laparotomy.

RESULTS

In the "laparoscopy alone" group, there were 2 minor complications and no postoperative mortality. Mean postoperative stay was 6 days. Eight patients had to be readmitted to hospital for symptoms derived from tumour progression, and 10 palliative endoscopic procedures were performed. Surgical interventions were not needed in any case. Mean survival was 11.5 months. Patients submitted only to laparotomy presented higher morbidity and mortality rates, with a longer postoperative stay and survival of less than 5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic staging of gastric cancer can help to avoid unnecessary laparotomies. In patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis diagnosed by laparoscopy, nonsurgical treatment has low morbidity and mortality and permits good symptom relief with no shortening of survival.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-detected low-volume ascites as a predictor of inoperability for oesophagogastric cancer

Background

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can detect low-volume ascites (LVA) not apparent on computed tomography. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of LVA for management of patients with oesophagogastric (OG) cancer.

Methods

Patients with LVA were identified from a prospective OG cancer unit database between January 2002 and January 2006.

Results

Of 1118 patients staged with OG cancer, 802 had EUS. The incidence of LVA was 8·4 per cent overall but fell to 6·5 per cent when those with metastases on computed tomography were excluded. Only patients with gastric and OG junction carcinoma had LVA. Staging laparoscopy in the 21 patients with LVA revealed that 11 (52 per cent) were inoperable. The remainder had laparotomy and complete (R0) resection was possible in only five (50 per cent). In 106 patients who had staging laparoscopy after EUS without LVA, 37 (34·9 per cent) were inoperable and 56 of the remaining 69 (81 per cent) had R0 resection.

Conclusion

The presence of LVA on EUS is uncommon in patients with OG cancer but very important, being indicative of incurable disease in 76 per cent. This information will be helpful in counselling patients regarding management options and the low likelihood of potentially curative treatment.

Multidisciplinary management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancers

Carcinomas of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction are among the five top leading cancer types worldwide. In spite of radical surgical R0 resections being the basis of cure of gastric cancer, surgery alone provides long-term survival in only 30% of patients with advanced International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stages in Western countries because of the high risk of recurrence and metachronous metastases. However, recent large phase-III studies improved the diagnostic and therapeutic options in gastric cancers, indicating a more multidisciplinary management of the disease. Multimodal strategies combining different neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant protocols have clearly improved the gastric cancer prognosis when combined with surgery with curative intention. In particular, the perioperative (neoadjuvant, adjuvant) chemotherapy is now a well-established new standard of care for advanced tumors. Adjuvant therapy alone should be carefully discussed after surgical resection, mainly in individual patients with large lymph node positive tumors when neoadjuvant therapy could not be done. The palliative treatment options have also been remarkably improved with new chemotherapeutic agents and will further be enhanced with targeted therapies such as different monoclonal antibodies. This article reviews the most relevant literature on the multidisciplinary management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancer, and discusses future strategies to improve locoregional failures.

The multidisciplinary management of gastrointestinal cancer. Multimodal treatment of gastric cancer

Although radical surgical R0 resections are the basis of cure for gastric cancer, surgery alone only provides long-term survival in 20-30% of patients with advanced-stage disease. Thus, in Western and European countries, advanced gastric cancer has a high risk of recurrence and metachronous metastases. Very recently, multimodal strategies combining different neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant protocols have improved the prognosis of gastric cancer when combined with surgery with curative intent. As used in palliative regimens, the combination of cisplatin with intravenous or oral fluoropyrimidines has been the integral component of such (neo)adjuvant strategies. However, the cytotoxic agents docetaxel, oxaliplatin and irinotecan and new targeted biologicals such as cetuximab, bevacizumab or panitumumab are currently under investigation, with or without irradiation, in multimodal treatment regimens. These studies may further increase R0 resection rates, and prolong disease-free and overall survival times in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. This article reviews the most relevant literature on multimodal treatment of gastric cancer, and discusses future strategies to improve locoregional failures.

Palliative management of gastric cancer

Advanced gastric cancer and its palliative treatment have a long and interesting history. Today, gastric adenocarcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Unfortunately, many cases are not diagnosed until late stages of disease, which underscores the importance of the palliative treatment of gastric cancer. Palliative care is best defined as the active total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment. Although endoscopy is the most useful method for securing the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma, computed tomography may be useful to assess local and distant disease. The main indication for the institution of palliative care is the presence of advanced gastric cancer for which curative treatment is deemed inappropriate. The primary goal of palliative therapy of gastric cancer patients is to improve quality, not necessarily length, of life. Four main modalities of palliative therapy for advanced gastric cancer are discussed: resection, bypass, stenting, and chemotherapy. The choice of modality depends on a variety of factors, including individual patient prognosis and goals, and should be made on case-by-case basis. Future directions include the discovery and development of serum or stool tumor markers aimed at prevention, improving prognostication and stratification, and increasing awareness and education.

Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been established as the diagnostic modality of choice in local (T) staging of gastric cancer. Multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are promising alternatives. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the performance of each of these imaging modalities.

METHODS

A systematic search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. Local staging performance of included studies was calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two EUS studies, five MDCT studies, one combined EUS and MDCT study, and three MRI studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of moderate methodological quality. Diagnostic accuracy of overall T staging for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 65% to 92.1%, 77.1% to 88.9%, and 71.4% to 82.6%, respectively. Sensitivity for assessing serosal involvement for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 77.8% to 100%, 82.8% to 100%, and 89.5% to 93.1%, respectively. Specificity for assessing serosal involvement for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 67.9% to 100%, 80% to 96.8%, and 91.4% to 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS, MDCT, and MRI achieve similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy in T staging and in assessing serosal involvement. Most experience has been gained with EUS. Few MDCT studies and even fewer MRI studies are available. Thus, EUS remains the first-choice imaging modality in preoperative T staging of gastric cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study is to report a large single-center experience with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of ascites.

METHODS

Consecutive patients at our institution in whom EUS-guided paracentesis was performed between January 1997 and July 2005 were identified retrospectively. All procedures were performed by or under the supervision of 1 of 5 experienced endosonographers with available on-site cytopathology.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients (33 men; mean age, 67 y) were identified. Previously attempted percutaneous paracentesis was unsuccessful in 3 of 6 patients. Ascites confirmed by EUS FNA was visible in 28 of 54 (52%) computerized tomography, 3 of 11 (27%) transabdominal ultrasound, and 4 of 8 (50%) magnetic resonance imaging examinations before EUS. Transgastric (n = 55) or transduodenal (n = 5) EUS-guided paracentesis (mean, 8.9; range, 1-40 mL) revealed malignancy in 16 (27%) from primary pancreatic (n = 9), gastric (n = 2), urothelial (n = 1), esophageal (n = 1), gallbladder (n = 1), bile duct (n = 1) cancer, and lymphoma (n = 1). The cytology from 2 patients was atypical (1 suspicious for malignancy and 1 considered reactive) and the remaining 42 were benign. Potential complications occurred in 2 of 60 (3%) patients with self-limited fever. Of the 8 of 60 (13%) patients who underwent subsequent surgery, 3 had metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 2) and metastatic small intestinal carcinoid (n = 1) to the peritoneum after negative EUS-FNA cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS frequently identifies ascites missed by other imaging studies. EUS-guided paracentesis may identify malignancy in a subset of patients. Negative ascitic fluid cytology from EUS FNA does not exclude possible peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Relationship between preoperative staging by endoscopic ultrasonography and MMP-9 expression in gastric carcinoma

AIM: To investigate the relationship between the staging by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and the expression of carcinoma metastasis associated gene in the patients with gastric carcinoma.

METHODS: Sixty-three patients with gastric cancer were diagnosed by electric gastroscopy and EUS. The preoperative staging of gastric cancer was measured by EUS and compared with pathologic staging and MMP-9 expression. Peripheral serum level of MMP-9 was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), while the expression of MMP-9 protein was tested with immunohistochemistry and hybridization in situ in the gastric carcinoma tissues.

RESULTS: The total accuracy of EUS in estimating invasive depth of gastric cancer was 80.95%, while that in estimating lymphatic metastasis was 73.02%. Serum MMP-9 levels were consistent with the expression of MMP-9 protein and MMP-9 mRNA in tissue, a result closely correlated with invasive degree, staging with EUS and lymphatic metastasis in gastric cancer (P < 0.05). The total accuracy of estimating invasive depth in gastric cancer was 95.22% using both EUS and MMP-9.

CONCLUSION: The MMP-9 level of preoperative serum presents the reference value for preoperative staging by EUS in the patients with gastric cancer. When serum MMP-9 level in gastric cancer is significantly high, physicians should pay closer attention to the metastasis which reaches the serosa or beyond. Combining EUS and MMP-9 improves the accuracy in deciding the invasion and metastasis in the patients with gastric carcinoma.

The role of surgery after incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a relatively new treatment option for early gastric cancer (EGC). However, cases of incomplete EMR resulting in a positive lateral margin or submucosal invasion (positive vertical margin) have been reported. We conducted this study to evaluate the role of surgery after incomplete EMR for EGC.

METHODS

We analyzed 19 patients who underwent gastrectomy as a result of an incomplete EMR. The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of incomplete EMR: a positive lateral margin (LM) group (n = 9), a positive vertical margin (VM) group (n = 4), and a positive lateral and vertical margin (LM + VM) group (n = 6).

RESULTS

The positive residual tumor rate and the positive lymph node rate were 44.4% (4/9) and 0% (0/9) in the LM group, 50.0% (2/4) and 25.0% (1/4) in the VM group, and 83.3% (5/6) and 16.7% (1/6), LM + VM group, respectively. Curative resection was performed in all patients and there was no recurrence in 30.8 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Radical surgery is recommended for patients with a positive lateral resection margin or submucosal invasion, or both, after EMR for EGC, because of the possibility of residual tumor or lymph node metastasis.

Clinical significance of CT-defined minimal ascites in patients with gastric cancer

AIM: To study the clinical significance of minimal ascites, which was only defined by the CT and whose nature was not determined preoperatively, in the relationship with the peritoneal carcinomatosis.

METHODS: The medical records and the dynamic CT films of 118 patients with gastric cancer were reviewed. Factors associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis were analyzed in 40 patients who had CT-defined ascites of which the nature was surgically confirmed.

RESULTS: Only 12.5-25% of the CT-defined minimal ascites, whose volume was estimated to be less than 50 mL, were associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis. When the estimated CT-defined ascitic volume was 50 mL or more, peritoneal carcinomatosis was identified in 75–100%. When CT-defined lymph node enlargements were not found beyond the regional gastric area, perigastric invasions were not suspected, and the size of tumor was less than 3 cm, peritoneal carcinomatosis seemed significantly less accompanied at the univariate analysis. However, except for the minimal volume of CT-defined ascites in comparison with the mild or more, other factors were not confirmed multivariately.

CONCLUSION: In the patients with gastric cancer, CT-defined minimal ascites alone is rarely associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis, if it does not accompany other signs suggestive of malignant seeding. Therefore, consideration of active curative resection should not be hesitated, if CT-defined minimal ascites is the only delusive sign.

(Neo)adjuvant strategies of advanced gastric carcinoma: time for a change?

Despite surgical R0 resections, patients with gastric cancer stage UICC II-III have a high risk of recurrence and metachronic metastases. Preliminary evidence exists that adjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy protocols may improve the prognosis of these patients undergoing surgery of gastric cancer with curative intention. As for palliative regimens, 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin are integral components of such (neo)adjuvant strategies. Upcoming cytostatic agents, i.e. irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and oral fluoropyridines are currently under investigation in new multimodality treatment regimens and may further increase R0 resection rates and may prolong disease-free and overall survival in the treatment of advanced localized gastric cancer.