Factors influencing change of preoperative treatment intent in a gastrointestinal cancer practice

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Comparison between CT Net enhancement and PET/CT SUV for N staging of gastric cancer: A case series

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic approach of gastric cancer strictly depends on TNM staging mainly provided by CT and PET/CT. However, the lymph node size criterion as detected by MDCT causes a poor differential diagnosis between reactive and metastatic enlarged lymph nodes with low specificity values. Our study aims to compare 320-row CT Net enhancement and fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-FDG PET/CT) SUV for N staging of gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

45 patients with histologically proven gastric cancer underwent CT and F-FDG PET/CT. Two radiologists in consensus evaluated all images and calculated the CT Net enhancement and F-FDG PET/CT SUV for N staging, having the histological findings as the reference standard. CT and F-FDG PET/CT sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were evaluated and compared by using the Mc Nemar test.

RESULTS

The histological examination revealed nodal metastases in 29/45 cases (64%). CT Net enhancement obtained sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV of 90%, 81%, 87%, 90% and 81%, respectively. F-FDG PET/CT SUV obtained sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV of 66%, 88%, 73%, 90% and 58%, respectively. No statistically significant difference between the two imaging modalities was found (p = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

CT Net enhancement represents an accurate tool for N staging of gastric cancer and could be considered as the CT corresponding quantitative parameter of F-FDG PET/CT SUV. It could be applied in the clinical practice for differentiating reactive lymph nodes from metastatic ones improving accuracy and specificity of CT.

Is endoscopic ultrasonography still the modality of choice in preoperative staging of gastric cancer?

The treatment option for gastric cancer is usually based on preoperative staging by imaging modalities. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) have been used as the diagnostic modality of choice in preoperative staging of gastric cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been employed in several studies, and (¹⁸F) 2-Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has emerged as a new promising imaging modality. The purpose of this article is to provide summarized information on preoperative staging using EUS, multi-detector row CT (MDCT), MRI and PET for gastric cancer. In T staging, both EUS and MDCT show high accuracy. MRI seemed to have better performance, but the number of MRI studies is limited. FDG-PET is not able to properly evaluate the depth of invasion. In N staging, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS, MDCT and MRI is not sufficient. In preoperative M staging, MDCT and FDG-PET showed similar diagnostic accuracies. FDG-PET/CT fusion could be expected to show better performance in the future. Physicians should keep in mind that each diagnostic modality has advantages and limitations and choose an appropriate diagnostic strategy tailored for each patient.

How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the fundamental curative option for gastric cancer patients. Imaging scans are routinely prescribed in an attempt to stage the disease prior to surgery. Consequently, the correlation between radiology exams and pathology is crucial for appropriate treatment planning.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 1, 2009. We calculated the accuracy, overstaging rate, understaging rate, Kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity for abdominal ultrasound (AUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to the gold standard (pathology). We also compared the performance of CT by detector number and image type. A meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

For pre-operative T staging MRI scans had better performance accuracy than CT and AUS; CT scanners using ≥ 4 detectors and multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images had higher staging performances than scanners with <4 detectors and axial images only. For pre-operative N staging PET had the lowest sensitivity, but the highest specificity among modalities; CT performance did not significantly differ by detector number or addition of MPR images. For pre-operative M staging performance did not significantly differ by modality, detector number, or MPR images.

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement between pre-operative TNM staging by imaging scans and post-operative staging by pathology is not perfect and may affect treatment decisions. Operator dependence and heterogeneity of data may account for the variations in staging performance. Physicians should consider this discrepancy when creating their treatment plans.

A systematic review of the accuracy and indications for diagnostic laparoscopy prior to curative-intent resection of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite improved preoperative imaging techniques, patients with incurable or unresectable gastric cancer are still subjected to non-therapeutic laparotomy. Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) has been advocated by some to be essential in decision-making in gastric cancer. We aimed to identify and synthesize findings on the value of DL for patients with gastric cancer, in this era of improved preoperative imaging.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2009. We calculated the change in management and avoidance of laparotomy based on the addition of DL and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS). The accuracy, agreement (kappa), sensitivity, and specificity of DL in assessing tumor extent, nodal involvement, and the presence of metastases with respect to the gold standard (pathology) were also calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included. DL showed moderate to substantial agreement with final pathology for T stage, but only fair agreement for N stage. For M staging, DL had an overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranging from 85-98.9%, 64.3-94%, and 80-100%, respectively. The use of DL altered treatment in 8.5-59.6% of cases, avoiding laparotomy in 8.5-43.8% of cases. LUS provided additional benefit in 5.8-7.2% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evolving preoperative imaging techniques, diagnostic laparoscopy continues to be of substantial value in staging patients with gastric cancer and in avoiding unnecessary laparotomy. The current data support DL for all patients with advanced gastric cancer.

An analysis of the utility of handheld PET probes for the intraoperative localization of malignant tissue

INTRODUCTION

The intraoperative localization of suspicious lesions detected by positron emission tomography (PET) scan remains a challenge. To solve this, two novel probes have been created to accurately detect the (18)F-FDG radiotracer intraoperatively.

METHODS

Nude rats were inoculated with mesothelioma. When PET scans detected 10-mm tumors, animals were dissected and the PET probes analyzed the intraoperative radiotracer uptake of these lesions as tumor to background ratio (TBR).

RESULTS

The 17 suspicious lesions seen on PET scan were localized intraoperatively (by their high TBR) using the PET probes and found malignant on pathology. Interestingly, smaller tumors not visualized on PET scan were detected intraoperatively by their high TBR and found malignant on pathology. Furthermore, using a TBR threshold as low as 2.0, both gamma (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value (PPV), 96%; and negative predictive value (NPV), 100%) and beta (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 60%; PPV, 93%; and NPV, 100%) probes reliably detected suspicious lesions on PET scan imaging. They also showed an excellent area under the curve of 0.9 and 0.97 (95% CI of 0.81-0.99 and 0.93-1.0) for gamma and beta probes, respectively, in the receiver operating characteristic analysis for detecting malignancy.

CONCLUSION

This novel tool could be used synergistically with a PET scan imaging to maximize tissue selection intraoperatively.