Preoperative Evaluation Of Gastric Cancer Research Articles

Preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer and risk factors for postoperative complications

Surgical resection plays pivotal role in the treatment of gastric cancer. Adequate preoperative evaluation, precise intraoperative maneuver and delicate postoperative management lay the foundation for successful gastrectomy. The aim of preoperative evaluation is to stage tumor and identify potential risk factors (including preoperative factors like age, ASA status, body mass index, comorbidity, hypoalbuminemia, and intraoperative factors like blood loss and combined resection) which could lead to postoperative complication. With the management of prehabilitation, adequate medical decision could be made and patient's fast recovery could be ensured. With the rapid adoption of ERAS concept, there is increasing attention to prehabilitation which focus on optimization of cardio-pulmonary capacity and muscular-skeletal capacity. Despite of the efficacy of prehabilitation demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, consensus has yet to be reached on the following items: specific intervention, optimal measurement, candidate population and optimal timing for intervention. Balancing the efficiency and safety, preoperative evaluation could be put into clinical practice smoothly.

The Significance of Preoperative Computed Tomography Features in the Prediction of Overall Survival in Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

Computed tomography (CT) is a frequently used modality for staging in the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer (GC). Our aim was to interpret the importance of preoperative CT features in predicting overall survival (OS) in patients operated for GC. One hundred and one patients with GC (33 women, 68 men; range of age: 29-82 years, median age: 61 years) who had abdominal CT prior to surgical resection were included in the study retrospectively. Two radiologists evaluated CT scans to record the longest dimension of the tumor, the localization of the lesion, the attenuation values of the tumor in the arterial and venous phases (Hounsfield units), invasion depth of the lesion (T stage), and the number of pathological lymph nodes (LNs) (N stage). Postoperative pathological results including resection (R0, R1), T stage, N stage, grade, and histopathological subtype were documented. All CT-provided results and clinicopathological features associated with OS were analyzed by univariate, multivariate, and receiver operator characteristic analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed that none of the CT features were associated with the OS. After resection, the survival ratio was poor for the R1 and high-grade groups than for the R0 and low-grade groups (p=0.001 and p=0.005, respectively). N stage and the longest dimension of the tumor on CT imaging truly estimated R1 resection status (AUC, 0.697; sensitivity, 63%; and specificity, 88%, and AUC, 0.734; sensitivity, 18%; and specificity, 76%, respectively). R1 resection status is associated with poor OS in GC. CT features, including the tumor's longest dimension and the number of pathological LNs, can predict R1 resection status.

Location, size, and distance: criteria for quality in esophagogastroduodenos copy reporting for pre-operative gastric cancer evaluation

There is a lack of existing literature regarding the quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reporting for gastric cancer evaluation. This study aims to determine criteria for quality endoscopic evaluation of gastric cancer in North America by identifying important features of the EGD report for pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer and assessing inclusion of these features in existing reports. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced endoscopists from community and academic hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto to identify essential elements for an EGD report. Then, 225 EGD reports from 2005 to 2008 were evaluated by two trained reviewers for inclusion of recommended EGD report elements and global assessment of report quality and adequacy for surgical planning. Essential elements recommended by interviewed endoscopists include tumor size, location, and distance from gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Approximately 95 % of all reports documented the location of lesions, <5 % documented distance from the GEJ, and <15 % documented tumor size. Overall report quality was rated as excellent for 4-5 % of reports; 20-42 % of all reports were deemed to be adequate for surgical planning. All surgeons interviewed as part of the endoscopist panel indicated that they would repeat the EGD before consulting with patients regarding surgical planning. For pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer, tumor size, location, and distance from key anatomical landmarks were proposed as essential elements of a quality EGD report. Most of the reviewed reports did not document these elements. Report quality is perceived to be poor and may lead to repeat endoscopy. Developing a standardized EGD reporting format based on inclusion of individual parameters can improve the quality of gastric cancer management.

Gastric cancer-can we rely only on endoscopic ultrasonography?

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is considered to be the most precise method for locoregional staging, was commonly used for differentiating mucosal lesions from submucosal lesions. By contrast, computed tomography (CT) was used to detect the presence of distant metastasis. Both are valuable tools for the pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer. With the introduction of new therapeutic options and the recent improvements in CT technology, further evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and multidetector CT (MDCT) is needed. The present study was conducted to compare the staging accuracy of EUS with that of MDCT in series of patients and to evaluate their usefulness in association with the clinicopathological factors. In total, 277 patients with gastric lesions who underwent EUS and CT, hospitalized at Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Center, University of Sarajevo. The results from the pre-operative EUS and MDCT were compared with the post-operative pathological findings. Among the 277 patients, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 74.7% and 76.9%, respectively. Among the 141 patients with visualized primary lesions on MDCT, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 61.7% and 63.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy for N staging was 66% and 62.8%, respectively. The performance of EUS and MDCT for large lesions and lesions at the cardia and angle had significantly lower accuracy than that of other groups. For EUS, the early gastric cancer lesions with ulcerative changes had significantly lower accuracy than those without ulcerative changes. For the pre-operative assessment of individual T and N staging in patients with gastric cancer, the accuracy of MDCT was close to that of EUS. Both EUS and MDCT are useful complementary modalities for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer.

Evaluation of hybrid PET/CT gastrography in gastric cancer

Summary Aim: With the recent advances in multidetector-row CT, a fusion of functional PET with three dimensional (3D) CT gastrography may provide enhanced diagnostic capability and help surgeons during preoperative planning. The diagnostic value of hybrid PET/CT gastrography was compared with that of conventional PET/CT alone in gastric cancer staging. Patients, methods: Patients with gastric cancer (n = 101) confirmed by endoscopic biopsy specimens underwent conventional PET/CT and regional PET with contrast enhanced CT, followed by gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy at our institution from November 2007 to November 2008. These images were fused into a hybrid PET/CT gastrography using the cardiac IQ fusion software. Conventional PET/CT and hybrid PET/ CT gastrography were evaluated for staging of gastric cancer. After gastrectomy, these were compared with pathologic reports respectively. Results: Gastric cancer was diagnosed as 50 early gastric cancer (EGC) and 51 advanced gastric cancer (AGC) on pathologic examination. In EGC, hybrid PET/CT gastrography and PET/CT identified 36 (72%) and 7 (14%) tumours, respectively. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography correctly delineated the subtype of 25 EGC. In AGC, all 51 (100%) tumours were identified on the hybrid PET/CT gastrography compared to 39 (76.5%) tumours on PET/CT. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography correctly classified the morphology of 42 AGC using the Bormann classification. Additionally, depth of invasion was correctly presented in 38 of 51 AGC. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography for regional lymph node (LN) metastasis in the EGC and AGC showed the sensitivity of 75% and 83.9%, and specificity 90.5% and 55%, respectively. Conclusion: Hybrid PET/CT gastrography is the more intuitive and comprehensive method for the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer than conventional PET/CT.

Evaluation of hybrid PET/CT gastrography in gastric cancer

With the recent advances in multidetector-row CT, a fusion of functional PET with three dimensional (3D) CT gastrography may provide enhanced diagnostic capability and help surgeons during preoperative planning. The diagnostic value of hybrid PET/CT gastrography was compared with that of conventional PET/CT alone in gastric cancer staging. Patients with gastric cancer (n = 101) confirmed by endoscopic biopsy specimens underwent conventional PET/CT and regional PET with contrast enhanced CT, followed by gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy at our institution from November 2007 to November 2008. These images were fused into a hybrid PET/CT gastrography using the cardiac IQ fusion software. Conventional PET/CT and hybrid PET/CT gastrography were evaluated for staging of gastric cancer. After gastrectomy, these were compared with pathologic reports respectively. Gastric cancer was diagnosed as 50 early gastric cancer (EGC) and 51 advanced gastric cancer (AGC) on pathologic examination. In EGC, hybrid PET/CT gastrography and PET/CT identified 36 (72%) and 7 (14%) tumours, respectively. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography correctly delineated the subtype of 25 EGC. In AGC, all 51 (100%) tumours were identified on the hybrid PET/CT gastrography compared to 39 (76.5%) tumours on PET/CT. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography correctly classified the morphology of 42 AGC using the Bormann classification. Additionally, depth of invasion was correctly presented in 38 of 51 AGC. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography for regional lymph node (LN) metastasis in the EGC and AGC showed the sensitivity of 75% and 83.9%, and specificity 90.5% and 55%, respectively. Hybrid PET/CT gastrography is the more intuitive and comprehensive method for the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer than conventional PET/CT.

Double contrast–enhanced ultrasonography for the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer: A comparison to endoscopic ultrasonography with respect to histopathology

Background This study was designed to compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with double contrast–enhanced ultrasound (DCUS) in the staging of gastric malignancies. DCUS is a transabdominal ultrasound technique using both intravenous and intraluminal contrast to enhance sonographic visualization. Methods This retrospective study included 162 patients with biopsy-proven gastric cancer who underwent DCUS and EUS preoperatively with the ultrasound results compared with the pathologic findings of the resected specimens. Results The overall accuracy of DCUS and EUS for tumor (T) staging was 77.2% and 74.7%, respectively . Comparison of ultrasound techniques for T staging revealed that DCUS was superior to EUS only for a tumor depth of T3 (chi-square, P = .025). Lymph nodes were staged correctly with DCUS and EUS in 78.4% and 57.4% of cases, respectively (chi-square, P = .001). Conclusions DCUS offers a noninvasive approach for the staging of gastric cancer. DCUS was comparable to EUS in tumor depth evaluation but offered an advantage in lymph node detection.

Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector‐row computed tomography

The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer. EUS and computed tomography (CT) are valuable tools for the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer. With the introduction of new therapeutic options and the recent improvements in CT technology, further evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MDCT is needed. In total, 277 patients who underwent EUS and MDCT, followed by gastrectomy or endoscopic resection at Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University, from July 2006 to April 2008, were analyzed. The results from the preoperative EUS and MDCT were compared to the postoperative pathological findings. Among the 277 patients, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 74.7% and 76.9%, respectively. Among the 141 patients with visualized primary lesions on MDCT, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 61.7% and 63.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy for N staging was 66% and 62.8%, respectively. The performance of EUS and MDCT for large lesions and lesions at the cardia and angle had significantly lower accuracy than that of other groups. For EUS, the early gastric cancer lesions with ulcerative changes had significantly lower accuracy than those without ulcerative changes. For the preoperative assessment of individual T and N staging in patients with gastric cancer, the accuracy of MDCT was close to that of EUS. Both EUS and MDCT are useful complementary modalities for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer.

64 Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography for Preoperative Evaluation of Gastric Cancer

To assess the accuracy of 64 multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) in the diagnosis and staging of gastric cancer. This study was approved by the institutional review board, and the patients involved gave informed consent. Forty-four patients (34 men and 10 women; mean age, 57 years) with gastric carcinoma underwent preoperative 64 MDCT (SOMATOM Sensation 64; Siemens Medical System, Forchheim, Germany; slice collimation, 0.6 mm; slice width, 5 mm; feed/rotation, 23 mm; pitch factor, 1.2; kernel, B30f; and gantry speed, 0.5 second per rotation). Gastric distension was achieved by ingestion of 8 g of effervescent granules. Scanning was performed during arterial and portal phases, as determined with bolus tracking and automated triggering technique after intravenous administration of 100 mL of contrast materials (4 mL/s). All computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed by 2 radiologists. Each tumor was staged according to the TNM classification system. All patients underwent surgery. Computed tomography results were compared with histological staging of tumor invasion depth and regional lymph node metastasis. The accuracy of 64 MDCT for detection of gastric cancer was 90% (18/20) and 100% (24/24) in early and advanced gastric cancer, respectively, with an overall detection rate of 95% (42/44). Its accuracy for determination of tumor penetration depth was 89% (16/18) and 88% (21/24) in early and advanced gastric cancer, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 88% (37/42). Its accuracy for determination of lymph node metastasis was 90% (18/20) and 71% (17/24) in early and advanced gastric cancer, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 80% (35/44). The 64 MDCT is a promising technique for the detection and preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer: value of spiral CT during gastric arteriography (CTGA).

To evaluate the utility of dual-phase spiral computed tomography during gastric arteriography (CTGA) in the preoperative staging of gastric cancers. We performed CTGA in 21 patients with pathologically proven gastric cancers. CTGA findings were prospectively analyzed and correlated with surgical and pathologic findings. Dual-phase scans were performed at 10 s (early) and 60-100 s (delayed) after injection of 120 mL of contrast medium at an injection rate of 6 mL/s through a preset 5-Fr catheter positioned in the celiac trunk. Spiral CT scans were assessed for enhancing pattern of the normal gastric wall, tumor detectability, and accuracy of tumor staging. Normal gastric mucosa was clearly visible as two or three layers in all patients on early-phase scans and in eight patients on delayed-phase scans. The primary tumors were correctly detected with CTGA in seven (88%) of the eight early gastric cancers and in all 13 (100%) advanced gastric cancers. The accuracy of CTGA for T staging was 50% and 77% in early and advanced gastric cancers, respectively. The overall accuracy for tumor detection and T staging was 95% and 67%, respectively. The accuracy of CTGA for the degree of serosal invasion and regional lymph node metastasis was 77% and 76%, respectively. The CTGA technique improved tumor detection rate and accuracy of tumor staging, especially in early gastric cancer, and may be very useful in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasound.

The preoperative use of endoscopic ultrasound was evaluated in 74 patients with confirmed gastric cancer. It was used in diagnosing the depth of invasion in the gastric wall, the infiltration to the adjacent organs, and the involvement of the perigastric lymph nodes. Results were compared with histological findings in resected specimens. Accuracy in staging gastric cancer using the T grade of the 1987 TNM system was 81.1% (60 of 74 patients). Endoscopic ultrasound provided excellent results compared with computed tomography and conventional ultrasound, particularly in evaluating perigastric lymph node metastasis and direct infiltration to the adjacent organs. The success rate in detecting lymph node metastasis was 50% (11 of 22 patients); the accuracy in diagnosing direct infiltration to the adjacent organs was 60% (three of five patients). This technique is useful in diagnosing malignant invasion and lymph node metastasis of gastric carcinomas but requires further refinement for use in diagnosing the disease itself. Its preoperative use is recommended for establishing surgical and other treatment plans, as well as in predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer.