Preoperative Staging Of Gastric Cancer Research Articles

Application of CD34 expression combined with three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography scanning in preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer (GC), a common malignant tumor worldwide, is critical for appropriate treatment plans and prognosis. Dynamic three-phase enhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning for preoperative staging of GC has limitations in evaluating tumor angiogenesis. CD34, a marker on vascular endothelial cell surfaces, is promising in evaluating tumor angiogenesis. We explored the value of their combination for preoperative staging of GC to improve the efficacy and prognosis of patients with GC. To explore the evaluation value of CD34 expression + dynamic three-phase enhanced CT scanning in preoperative staging of GC. Medical records of 106 patients with GC treated at the First People's Hospital of Lianyungang between February 2021 and January 2023 were retrospectively studied. All patients underwent three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scanning before surgery, and CD34 was detected in gastroscopic biopsy specimens. Using surgical and pathological results as the gold standard, the diagnostic results of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scanning at different T and N stages were analyzed, and the expression of CD34-marked microvessel density (MVD) at different T and N stages was determined. The specificity and sensitivity of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and CD34 in T and N staging were calculated; those of the combined diagnosis of the two were evaluated in parallel. Independent factors affecting lymph node metastasis were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. The accuracy of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scanning in diagnosing stages T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 68.00%, 75.00%, 79.41%, and 73.68%, respectively, and for diagnosing stages N0, N1, N2, and N3 were 75.68%, 74.07%, 85.00%, and 77.27%, respectively. CD34-marked MVD expression increased with increasing T and N stages. Specificity and sensitivity of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT in T staging were 86.79% and 88.68%; for N staging, 89.06% and 92.86%; for CD34 in T staging, 64.15% and 88.68%; and for CD34 in N staging, 84.38% and 78.57%, respectively. Specificity and sensitivity of joint diagnosis in T staging were 55.68% and 98.72%, and N staging were 75.15% and 98.47%, respectively, with the area under the curve for diagnosis improving accordingly. According to multivariate analysis, a longer tumor diameter, higher pathological T stage, lower differentiation degree, and higher expression of CD34-marked MVD were independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients with GC. With high accuracy in preoperatively determining the invasion depth and lymph node metastasis of GC, CD34 expression and three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT can provide a reliable basis for surgical resection.

Linear EUS Accuracy in Preoperative Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Preoperative gastric cancer (GC) staging is the most reliable prognostic factor that affects therapeutic strategies. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and radial endoscopic ultrasound (R-EUS) scans are the most commonly used staging tools for GC. The accuracy of linear EUS (L-EUS) in this setting is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the accuracy of L-EUS and CECT in preoperative GC staging, with regards to depth of tumor invasion (T staging) and nodal involvement (N staging). 191 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for GC were retrospectively enrolled. Preoperative staging had been performed using both L-EUS and CECT, and the results were compared to postoperative staging by histopathologic analysis of surgical specimens. L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for depth of invasion of the GC was 100%, 60%, 74%, and 80% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. CECT accuracy for T staging was 78%, 55%, 45%, and 10% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for N staging of GC was 85%, significantly higher than CECT accuracy (61%). Our data suggest that L-EUS has a higher accuracy than CECT in preoperative T and N staging of GC.

Can endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) improve the accuracy of clinical T staging by computed tomography (CT) for gastric cancer?

IntroductionWith the introduction of new therapeutic options for gastric cancer treatment, more precise preoperative staging of gastric cancer is needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for improving the accuracy of clinical T staging by computed tomography (CT) for gastric cancer. Materials and methodsA total of 2636 patients underwent stomach protocol CT (S-CT) and EUS, followed by gastrectomy for primary gastric adenocarcinoma between September 2012 and February 2018 at Seoul National University Hospital. The results of preoperative S-CT and EUS were compared to the postoperative pathologic staging. ResultsThe overall accuracy of S-CT and EUS for T staging were 69.4% and 70.4%, respectively. When T staging was divided into T1-2 and T3-4 for clinically advanced gastric cancer (AGC), the positive predictive value for T3-4 using S-CT, EUS, and a combination of both modalities was 73.8%, 79.3%, and 85.6%, respectively. In 114 cases of indeterminate lesions between cT1 and cT2 by S-CT, EUS had a better prediction rate than the final decision based on endoscopy or the agreement between the two experts (Match rate: EUS vs. final decision, 69.3% vs. 58.8%). ConclusionEUS can be a complementary diagnostic tool to clinical T staging of gastric cancer by CT for selecting T3-4 lesion.

Quantitative study of preoperative staging of gastric cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as a potential clinical index

PurposeTo determine the utility of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging in quantitative analysis of preoperative tumor (T) and node (N) stages of gastric cancer, and to quantify the diagnostic threshold of IVIM parameters for serosal invasion and lymphatic metastasis. Materials and methodsFrom October 2016 to February 2020, 98 patients with gastric cancer who were receiving treatment in Zhongshan Hospital, China, were subject to an IVIM sequence imaging analysis. The IVIM sequence data were imported into software for post-processing of tumor regions of interest, and the IVIM parameters (the microvascular volume fraction (f), the molecular diffusion coefficient (D) and perfusion-related incoherent microcirculation (D*) were calculated. The variation of these IVIM parameters with different tumor-node metastasis (TNM) stages were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance. The IVIM parameters of serosal invasion and lymphatic metastasis were examined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and t-tests. ResultsA total of 98 gastric cancer patients (65 males and 33 females) with an average age of 61.9 years were enrolled in this study. There were 14 patients in stage T1, 14 in stage T2, 10 in stage T3 and 60 in stage T4a+b. There were 37 patients in stage N0, 19 in stage N1, 18 in stage N2 and 24 in stage N3. Statistically significant associations were found between the D values and T stages of gastric cancer. The D values of stage T4 cancers were significantly different from those of stage T2, T3 and T4 cancers. The D value decreased with increasing T stage. The mean D values of stages were 1.432 × 10−3 mm2/s (T1), 1.225 × 10−3 mm2/s (T2), 1.154 × 10−3 mm2/s (T3) and 0.9468 × 10−3 mm2/s (T4). The extent of the invasion of serosa was found to be significantly correlated with D value, with the diagnostic threshold for D being 1.107 × 10−3 mm2/s. In addition, different pathological N stages of gastric cancer lesions showed statistically significantly variations in f values, but no correlation was found with different N stages. Finally, the extent of lymphatic metastasis was found to be correlated with D values, with the diagnostic threshold being 1.1739 × 10−3 mm2/s. There was no statistically significant correlation between the IVIM MRI parameters and tumor size. The grade of tumor was found to be significantly correlated with D* value, with the diagnostic threshold for D* being 1.516 × 10−2 mm2/s. There was no statistically significant correlation between the ADC value and tumor size. There was a significant difference in the ADC values among different T and N stage cancers. ADC value had statistically significant to distinguish gastric cancer with or without serosal invasion, its detection efficiency was not as high as that of D value, with an AUC of 0.628 and 0.830, respectively. The ADC value was not statistically significant in distinguishing gastric cancer with or without lymphatic metastasis (P ≥ 0.05). The ADC value had not statistically significant in distinguishing gastric cancer between low and medium-high grade (P ≥ 0.05). ConclusionWe found that significant differences existed between whole-volume IVIM parameters of different T or N stages in gastric cancers, and were able to quantify different T or N stages of gastric cancer by the values of these parameters. The results of this quantitative study provide new tools for evaluating the prognosis of gastric cancer and will be valuable for the development of an new imaging method for determining the morphological stages of gastric cancer.

Comparative Analysis of Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy Data in Preoperative Staging of Gastric Cancer

Objective: to compare the data of computed tomography (CT) and diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in the preoperative estimation of the extension of gastric cancer.Material and methods. Data on 51 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of gastric cancer were analyzed. CT and DL were performed in all the patients at an interval of 1–2 days during their preoperative examinations to determine the stage of a tumor process. Of the 51 patients, 34 (66.7%) were found to have no distant abdominal metastases and underwent radical surgery. CT and DL revealed distant abdominal organ metastases in 17 (33.3%) of the 51 patients. To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of CT and DL, the investigators calculated the main characteristics (sensitivity, specificity) and auxiliary criteria (accuracy, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.Results. The findings suggested that the diagnostic efficiency of CT in determining the T category was a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 92%; and that of DL was 83% and 87%, respectively. CT in diagnosing a regional lymph node metastasis had a higher sensitivity than DL (88% vs. 63%), but a lower specificity than DL (80% vs. 90%). CT diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis exhibited a sensitivity of 46%, a specificity of 97.4%, an accuracy of 84.3%, PPV of 85.7%, and NPV of 84.1%. The symptoms of peritoneal carcinomatosis were ascites, soft tissue nodules along the peritoneum, diffuse induration and thickening of abdominal tissue planes, and increased mesenteric vascularity.Conclusion. The combined use of CT and DL is a current algorithm for examining patients with gastric cancer. It makes it possible to obtain complete information about the extension of the process, to increase the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis and to form a group of patients to undergo radical surgery.

An investigation on gastric cancer staging using CT structured report

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical performance of structured report (SR) for CT in patients with pre-operative staging of gastric cancer, compared to non-SR. MethodsRetrospectively, 51 consecutive cases with primary gastric cancer staging were enrolled. Every SR or non-SR was performed by two GI radiologists (1 junior and 1 senior). Interobserver agreement was conducted between the junior and senior groups for both SR and non-SR. 10 key features required for lesion description and staging were assessed between SR and non-SR. Diagnostic content between SR and non-SR was also compared. Accuracy of SR and non-SR on T staging was measured. Subjective evaluation of SR vs. non-SR was also conducted in form of survey by 20 radiologists and 3 GI surgeons. ResultsInterobserver agreement showed excellent in SR (Kappa = 1, P < 0.001), but poor in non-SR (Kappa = 0.036, P = 0.455). For the 10 key features required for lesion assessment, non-SR showed 6.84 ± 0.83 while SR reported all of them (P < 0.001). Statistically significant improvement was observed in the SR for parts of key features, especially for assessment of adjacent organs and vessels (P < 0.001). Accuracy comparison of T staging showed higher in SR for cohort of T4a (P = 0.028<0.05). The scores of subjective evaluation were higher (P < 0.05) in SR than in non-SR by both radiologists and surgeons. Meanwhile, the inter-observer agreement among surgeons was good in SR with significance (w=0.53, P = 0.005 for efficiency; w=0.638, P < 0.001 for integrity) but poor in non-SR. ConclusionsSR of gastric multiphasic CT ensured reliable detection of all relevant key features for staging along with reproducible documentation, which was not always the case for non-SR. In addition, SR has the potential in improving diagnostical accuracy of T staging and was welcomed by clinicians.

Evaluation of the Implementation of FDG-PET/CT and Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer in The Netherlands

BackgroundThe role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) has increased in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer. Dutch national guidelines have recommended the use of FDG-PET/CT and SL for patients with locally advanced tumors since July 2016.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of FDG-PET/CT and SL in The Netherlands.MethodsBetween 2011 and 2018, all patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer were included from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. The use of FDG-PET/CT and SL was evaluated before and after revision of the Dutch guidelines. Outcomes included the number of non-curative procedures (e.g. palliative and futile procedures) and the association of FDG-PET/CT and SL, with waiting times from diagnosis to the start of treatment.ResultsA total of 3310 patients were analyzed. After July 2016, the use of FDG-PET/CT (23% vs. 61%; p < 0.001) and SL (21% vs. 58%; p < 0.001) increased. FDG-PET/CT was associated with additional waiting time to neoadjuvant therapy (4 days), as well as primary surgical treatment (20 days), and SL was associated with 8 additional days of waiting time to neoadjuvant therapy. Performing SL or both modalities consecutively in patients in whom it was indicated was not associated with the number of non-curative procedures.ConclusionDuring implementation of FDG-PET/CT and SL after revision of the guidelines, both have increasingly been used in The Netherlands. The addition of these staging methods was associated with increased waiting time to treatment. The number of non-curative procedures did not differ after performing none, solely one, or both staging modalities.

Preoperative Staging of Gastric Cancer Using Computed Tomography and Its Correlation with Histopathology with Emphasis on Multi-planar Reformations and Virtual Gastroscopy.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the world. Preoperative staging of gastric cancer has assumed pivotal role in deciding appropriate management of gastric cancer with multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) using hydro- and gaseous distension of stomach superseding endoscopic ultrasound in tumor (T) and nodal (N) staging. We undertook this study to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT in the T and N staging of gastric cancer with an attempt to differentiate between early and advanced gastric carcinomas. A total of 160 patients with endoscopically diagnosed and biopsy-proven gastric cancer were subjected to MDCT after adequate gaseous and hydro-distention of stomach. Multi-planar reformatted (MPR) as well as virtual gastroscopy images were also obtained. Gastric lesions were categorized into T1 to T4 stages with N staging from N0 to N3. Preoperative CT findings were correlated with histopathological findings. Overall diagnostic accuracy of T staging in our study was 82.5% (132/160) with an accuracy of 75% (120/160) for N staging. The diagnostic accuracy of CT for early gastric carcinoma in our study was 93.75% with high specificity of 96% but low sensitivity of 66.7%. MDCT using gaseous and hydro-distension of stomach is an excellent modality for near accurate preoperative T staging of gastric cancer. However, CT has a limited role in the N staging of gastric cancer. This study also suggested that the combined use of virtual gastroscopy and MPR images helps in better detection of early gastric cancers.

Use of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Gastric Cancer Staging.

The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), the quantitative parameter of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), is a measure for this restricted diffusion, and its role in gastric cancer (GC) including distinguishing malignant segments from healthy gastric wall, metastatic perigastric lymph nodes from benign nodes and evaluating response of GC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been investigated in previous studies. Evidence suggests that ADC may also be of help in assessment of aggressiveness and preoperative staging of gastric cancer, which needs to be explored in further studies. To investigate the role of DW-MRI and its quantitative parameter, ADC in staging of gastric cancer. Forty-six patients (28 male, 18 female, mean age 62 years) with non-metastatic biopsy- proven GC who underwent abdominal DW-MRI before surgery were included in this retrospective study. Tumor invasion depth (T-stage) and nodal involvement (N-stage) were evaluated using signal increase on DW-MRI, and tumor ADC was measured. Diagnostic performance of these results was assessed by comparing them with postsurgical histopathology based on 8th TNM classification. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DW-MRI in T-staging were 92.1%, 75%, 89.1% for ≤T2 vs. ≥T3; and 75%, 88.5%, 82.6% for ≤T3 vs. T4. However, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DW-MRI in N-staging were 89.3%, 88.9%, 89.1% for ≤N1 vs. ≥N2; and 73.7%, 96.3%, 86.9% for ≤N2 vs. N3, respectively. Relative preoperative ADC values correlated with pT staging (r=-0.397, p=0.006). There was also a statistically significant difference of relative ADC values between ≤T3 and T4 stages, and a cut-off of 0.64 s/mm2 could differentiate these stages with an odds ratio of 7.714 (95% confidence interval, 1.479-40.243). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for differentiating ≤T3 and T4 stages was 0.725. DW-MRI may contribute to the clinical staging of non-metastatic GC. In particular, relative ADC of DW-MRI can distinguish T4 gastric cancer from less advanced T-stages.

Prognostic Performance of Preoperative Staging: Assessed by Using Multidetector Computed Tomography-Between the New Clinical Classification and the Pathological Classification in the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Classification for Gastric Carcinoma.

Since the eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification recently introduced the clinical classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer, the new clinical classification has not been extensively validated yet. Therefore, in this study, we compared the prognostic performance of the new clinical classification and the pathologic classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer. We reviewed 3027 patients with gastric cancer who were surgically treated between 2009 and 2013. Patient survival was analyzed according to the preoperative stage by the clinical classification and the pathologic classification in the eighth AJCC classification. The prognostic performance was examined using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) value and Harrell c-index. Patient survival was significantly different across the different stages when both classifications were used. However, individual pairwise comparisons showed that survival differences between each stage were more distinctive and homogeneous in the pathologic classification. In the multivariate model adjusted for the final pathologic stage, preoperative staging by the pathologic classification was an independent prognostic factor, whereas the clinical classification was not. The pathologic classification showed a lower AIC value compared with the clinical classification (5100.64 vs. 5114.14). The Harrell c-index was higher in the pathologic classification than in the clinical classification (0.741 vs. 0.739). The new clinical classification in the eighth AJCC classification discriminates patient survival well. However, it does not appear to have a better prognostic performance compared with the pathologic classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of gastric cancer: initial experience

Magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of gastric cancer: initial experience

Imaging strategies in the management of gastric cancer: current role and future potential of MRI.

Accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer and the assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment is of importance for treatment and prognosis. Current imaging techniques, mainly endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET), have their limitations. Historically, the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in gastric cancer has been limited, but with the continuous technical improvements, MRI has become a more potent imaging technique for gastrointestinal malignancies. The accuracy of MRI for T- and N-staging of gastric cancer is similar to EUS and CT, making MRI a suitable alternative to other imaging strategies. There is limited evidence on the performance of MRI for M-staging of gastric cancer specifically, but MRI is widely used for diagnosing liver metastases and shows potential for diagnosing peritoneal seeding. Recent pilot studies showed that treatment response assessment as well as detection of lymph node metastases and systemic disease might benefit from functional MRI (e.g. diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhancement). Regarding treatment guidance, additional value of MRI might be expected from its role in better defining clinical target volumes and setup verification with MR-guided radiation treatment.

Development trend of assessment system in gastric cancer based on evolution of staging criteria

There are two major stage classification systems for gastric cancer: the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging by the International Union against Cancer (UICC)/the American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association(JGCA). The evolution of these two systems showed the advancement of gastric cancer treatment. The independence of TNM and JGCA staging system is not conducive to global communication and cooperation. The integration of 2010 Japan's 14th edition of the General Rules for Gastric Cancer Study and the 7th edition of UICC/AJCC TNM staging formed an internationally unified clinical staging system. TNM staging determined by the N factor according to the number of lymph node metastasis more accurately stratified the survival curves of different stages. On January 1, 2018, the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for gastric cancer was officially implemented. The 8th edition of TNM staging provided a new definition of the staging criteria for esophagogastric junction cancer. On the basis of a single staging system, clinical TNM staging(cTNM) and neoadjuvant treatment staging (ypTNM) were added. N3a and N3b were seperately staged, and adjustments were made to the histological grading. A comprehensive treatment plan was determined by accurate clinical staging in the model of multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment for gastric cancer. Comprehensive application of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multi-slice spiral CT(MDCT), positron computed tomography combined with CT(PET-CT), and staging laparoscopy can improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of gastric cancer. The emergence of ypTNM staging is a highlight of the 8th edition of the staging, but due to insufficient case data for cTNM and ypTNM staging, the staging criteria are relatively broad, and more data validation, refinement and revision are required in the future. The 8th edition system is superior to the 7th edition system in terms of homogeneity, discriminatory ability, and monotonicity of gradients for Chinese patients with gastric cancer. The new version of the staging can guide clinicians to develop treatment plans more rationally, evaluate the treatment more scientifically, and assess the prognosis more accurately. New lymph node staging methods such as metastatic rate(rN), log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS), and a new staging system based on the anatomical range of lymph node metastasis can also better predict the prognosis of patients. At present, molecular type of gastric cancer has little significance for prognosis guidance, and may be rewritten or supplemented with TNM staging of gastric cancer in the future. This article discusses the history, current status and research progress of gastric cancer staging.

Multidetector computed tomography in the evaluation of gastric malignancy; A multicenteric study

ObjectiveThe aim of this work is to highlight the diagnostic value of multidetector CT in assessment of gastric malignancy compared to surgical and pathological results. MethodA Multicenter study was conducted from (October 2011–March 2014). Thirty-five patients were included, eight females and twenty-seven males with mean age 50 years (34–81). All patients were subjected to; Full history taking and physical examination, Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT), and Upper Gastro intestinal endoscopy. Triphasic CT was used using oral and IV contrast where scanning at arterial phase cuts were taken after 15 s followed by portovenous 20–25 s after the arterial phase. Results74% of Lesions detected at the study were mural thickening, with adenocarcinoma pathology. MDCT T staging compared to pathological staging was highly significant. Only 33 cases had pathological reports suitable for comparison with the MDCT staging. True positive cases were 30, false positive cases were 2 cases and false negative was only one case, Thus giving sensitivity 96.7% and accuracy 91%. ConclusionMultidetector CT can play an important role in diagnosis and preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Usefulness of combined PET/CT to assess regional lymph node involvement in gastric cancer.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for preoperative staging of gastric cancer and to compare the diagnostic performance of PET/CT with that of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). We retrospectively reviewed 74 gastric cancer patients who underwent preoperative PET/CT and CECT, and subsequent curative surgical resection between April 2007 and July 2011. Preoperative PET/CT and CECT images for primary tumors of the stomach and lymph node metastases were reviewed retrospectively. The final diagnoses of primary tumors and LN metastases were based on histopathological specimens in all patients. Advanced gastric cancer was present in 65% of patients (n = 48), and the remaining patients had early gastric cancer (n = 26). Sixteen patients (22%) showed signet-ring-cell histology. For the detection of the primary tumor, the sensitivity of PET/CT was significantly higher than that of CECT (67% vs 55%, respectively; P = 0.049). For the evaluation of regional lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/CT and CECT were 34% and 51% (P = 0.065), 88% and 79% (P = 0.687), and 58% and 64% (P = 0.332), respectively. Neither PET/CT nor CECT detected regional lymph node metastases in early gastric cancer patients. Signet-ring-cell histology showed trends of non-FDG-avid lymph node metastases (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.37, P = 0.093). The accuracy of PET/CT is low and it is not a useful tool in the staging of gastric cancer overall in early gastric cancer and in signet-ring-cell carcinoma. Furthermore, the sensitivity of PET/CT could be inferior to that of CECT in the diagnosis of regional lymph node metastasis.

Preoperative accuracy of gastric cancer staging in patient selection for preoperative therapy: race may affect accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography.

Over the last 15 years, large randomized controlled studies have validated the benefit of preoperative therapy for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are commonly used to select patients for preoperative treatment, but studies of preoperative staging accuracy that focus on patient selection for preoperative therapy are rare; therefore, whether CT or EUS can reliably identify patients eligible for preoperative therapy is still unclear. Our purpose was to determine the accuracy of EUS and CT for preoperative staging of gastric cancer and to identify factors that may affect their usefulness in selecting patients for preoperative therapy. We reviewed the medical records of 8,260 patients with gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated at our institution from 1995 to 2013, identifying those who underwent gastrectomy without preoperative treatment. We compared T stage and N status from preoperative EUS and CT reports with those drawn from surgical pathology reports. Clinicopathologic and demographic variables associated with incorrect preoperative staging were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. We identified 187 patients who underwent preoperative staging by EUS (n=145) and/or CT (n=134) before gastrectomy. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS in distinguishing stage T1 from more advanced tumors were 82%, 78%, and 85%, respectively. Variables associated with underestimation of EUS T stage were lymphovascular invasion [odds ratio (OR), 7.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-29.50; P<0.01] and white race (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.31-10.75; P=0.01). The accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities for determining N status were, respectively, 65%, 49%, and 79% with CT and 66%, 29%, and 95% with EUS. Lymphovascular invasion was associated with a false negative result (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.34-10.70; P=0.01), and well- or moderately differentiated histology was associated with a false positive result for CT N status (OR, 7.14; 95% CI, 2.00-25.44; P<0.01). EUS is accurate in distinguishing T1 from T2-T4 lesions; both CT and EUS have low sensitivities and high specificities in determining N status. These accuracies and variables associated with inaccurate staging, including race, should be considered when selecting gastric cancer patients for preoperative therapy.

Consideration of clinicopathologic features improves patient stratification for multimodal treatment of gastric cancer.

Preoperative staging of gastric cancer with computed tomography alone exhibits poor diagnostic accuracy, which may lead to improper treatment decisions. We developed novel patient stratification criteria to select appropriate treatments for gastric cancer patients based on preoperative staging and clinicopathologic features. A total of 5352 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer were evaluated. Preoperative stages were determined according to depth of invasion and nodal involvement on computed tomography. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify clinicopathological factors associated with the likelihood of proper patient stratification. The diagnostic accuracies of computed tomography scans for depth of invasion and nodal involvement were 67.1% and 74.1%, respectively. Among clinicopathologic factors, differentiated tumor histology, tumors smaller than 5 cm, and gross appearance of early gastric cancer on endoscopy were shown to be related to a more advanced stage of disease on preoperative computed tomography imaging than actual pathological stage. Additional consideration of undifferentiated histology, tumors larger than 5 cm, and grossly advanced gastric cancer on endoscopy increased the probability of selecting appropriate treatment from 75.5% to 94.4%. The addition of histology, tumor size, and endoscopic findings to preoperative staging improves patient stratification for more appropriate treatment of gastric cancer.

Correlation between preoperative tomographic staging and definitive histopathologic results in gastric cancer at the Hospital Central Militar

BackgroundIn relation to the number of new cases diagnosed, gastric cancer is the fourth most common cancer worldwide, and the second cause of cancer death. The development of multidetector tomography has improved the preoperative staging of gastric cancer. AimTo correlate preoperative tomographic studies with the definitive pathologic results according to the TNM staging system. MethodsA retrospective, cross-sectional study within the time frame of January 2009 to December 2013 was conducted that included the case records of 67 patients. They all had upper endoscopy and preoperative multidetector tomography examinations, underwent surgical resection, and had the corresponding histopathology study. Statistical analysis was carried out with the SPSS version 15.0 software and the sensitivity and specificity calculations were made using the Excel 2011 program for Mac. ResultsThe majority of the patients included in the case series had clinical stage iii and iv disease. When compared with the histopathologic result, the overall accuracy of multidetector CT was 83% (T0 96%, T1 94%, T2 93%, T3 67%, and T4 67%) for tumor size (T) and was 70% (N0 72%, N1 73%, N2 70%, and N3 66%) for lymph node involvement (N). Overall sensitivity was 48% (T0 100%, T1 0%, T2 33%, T3 44%, and T4 65%) for T and was 41% (N0 58%, N1 56%, N2 15%, and N3 35%) for N. A strong association between the multidetector CT results and the pathology results was demonstrated through the Spearman's correlation, especially in T4 and N3. ConclusionsMultidetector computed tomography showed greater congruency in detecting stages T4, N0, and N3 in gastric cancer, when compared with the definitive histopathologic results.

Present status of preoperative staging and contemplation on preoperative precision staging for gastric cancer

The aim of the preoperative staging of gastric cancer was to evaluate the depth of tumor infiltration (T-stage), the extent or number of metastasized lymph nodes (N-stage), and distant metastasis (M-stage) before surgery, to develop an optimal therapeutic scheme for the patients with gastric cancer. Traditional methods of preoperative staging for gastric cancer are usually imaging diagnostic techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), CT scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and laparoscopic exploration. At present, the accuracy of preoperative TNM staging of gastric cancer can generally reach 70% to 85% with significant clinical benefit. The accurate preoperative staging for cancer patients can have a major role in determining the final clinical outcome and in predicting the prognosis. According to the concept of "precision medicine", to achieve "preoperative precision staging of gastric cancer", the application of imaging diagnostic techniques must be combined with the analysis of individual genetic information or tumor molecular pathological classification, which should be based on research of the disease genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. In this article, we provide a review of results on preoperative staging of gastric cancer in recent years, and we also discuss how to think about the "preoperative precision staging of gastric cancer", with special emphasis on the potential of molecular imaging techniques, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), molecular targets for tumor targeting therapy and molecular pathological classification, etc. in judging bio-molecular behavior of gastric cancer before surgery.

Staging of gastric cancer: Comparison of post-operative pathologic staging to pre-operative CT and endoscopic ultrasonographic staging.

11 Background: Stomach CT and endoscopic ultrasonography are used for evaluating pre-operative staging of gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pre-operative CT and endoscopic ultrasonographic staging to post-operative pathologic staging. Methods: We reviewed medical records of 567 patients with gastric cancer from 2012 to 2015, and compared their pre-operative CT staging to post-operative pathologic staging. Among the 567 patients, 149 patients underwent pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging, so we compared their pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging to post-operative pathologic staging. We also investigated lymph node metastasis in 146 patients with gastric cancer invading submucosa, planning to undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection. Results: The numbers of patients diagnosed as T1, T2, T3, T41, and T4b by pre-operative CT staging were 327, 97, 93, 46, and 4, respectively. However, the numbers of patients diagnosed as T1, T2, T3, T41, and T4b by post-operative pathologic staging were 208, 153, 53, 83, 62, and 8, resulting the pre-operative CT staging to be under-estimated. Similarly, pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging was also under-estimated, as although 48, 67, 32, and 2 patients were diagnosed as T1a, T1b, T2, and T3, respectively, by the pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging, post-operative pathologic staging revealed 72, 55, 13, 7, and 2 patients. In patients with gastric cancer invading submucosa (sm), there were 56 patients with sm1 invasion, 32 patients with sm2 invasion, and 91 patients with sm3 invasion. Lymph node metastasis was observed in 7 patients with sm1 invasion, 3 patients with sm2 invasion, and 22 patients with sm3 invasion. Poorly cohesive gastric cancer was the most common pathologic diagnosis in patients with metastatic lymph node. Conclusions: Physicians should keep in mind that pre-operative stomach CT and endoscopic ultrasonographic staging can be under-estimated compared to post-operative pathologic staging. Also, patients with poorly cohesive adenocarcinoma had more lymph node metastasis than patients with differentiated adenocarcinoma.