Stage migration caused by D2 dissection with para-aortic lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer from the results of a prospective randomized controlled trial
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Centre, Yokohama, Japan. British Journal of Surgery
(Impact Factor: 5.54).
12/2006; 93(12):1526-9. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5487
Extended lymphadenectomy (D2) provides accurate nodal staging of gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to clarify the degree of stage migration seen with D2 combined with para-aortic lymph node dissection for gastric cancer invading the subserosa, the serosa and adjacent structures (T2ss-4) in patients considered not to have distant metastases (M0).
Between July 1995 and April 2001, 523 patients were recruited and randomized in a prospective phase III trial comparing D2 with D2 and para-aortic nodal dissection for T2ss-4 gastric cancer without macroscopic para-aortic nodal metastases. Stage migration was evaluated by Japanese Gastric Cancer Association staging in 260 patients who underwent D2 with para-aortic dissection by analysing pathological information from the dissected lymph nodes.
Node (N)-stage migration was observed in 1 per cent (1 of 82) of patients with N1 disease, 20 per cent (12 of 59) with N2, 43 per cent (10 of 23) with N3 and 8.8 per cent (23 of 260) of all patients. Final stage migration occurred in 9 per cent (5 of 58) of patients with stage IIIa, 19 per cent (8 of 42) with stage IIIb, 56 per cent (9 of 16) with stage IVa and 8.5 per cent (22 of 260) of all patients. Metastasis to N4 nodes was found in 4 per cent (four of 95) of tumours invading the subserosa and 17.4 per cent (19 of 109) of tumours penetrating the serosa. The overall incidence of N4 involvement was 8.8 per cent (23 of 260).
Extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer provides accurate nodal staging and results in stage migration, which may improve stage-specific survival regardless of overall survival benefit.
Available from: Sung-Ho Jin
- "In other words, a considerable number of patients with AGC may be incorrectly staged. Therefore, the test execution variation of PLC is directly related to stage migration in patients with AGC, especially owing to the revised 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual.38-40 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Peritoneal lavage cytology is part of the routine staging workup for patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, no quality assurance study has been conducted to show variations or biases in peritoneal lavage cytology results. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a test execution variation in peritoneal lavage cytology between investigating surgeons.
A prospective cohort study was designed for determination of the positive rate of peritoneal lavage cytology using a liquid-based preparation method in patients with potentially curable advanced gastric cancer (cT2~4/N0~2/M0). One hundred thirty patients were enrolled and underwent laparotomy, peritoneal lavage cytology, and standard gastrectomy, which were performed by 3 investigating surgeons. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test and a logistic regression model.
The overall positive peritoneal cytology rate was 10.0%. Subgroup positive rates were 5.3% in pT1 cancer, 2.0% in pT2/3 cancer, 11.1% in pT4a cancer, and 71.4% in pT4b cancer. In univariate analysis, positive peritoneal cytology showed significant correlation with pT stage, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, ascites, and the investigating surgeon. We found the positive rate to be 2.1% for surgeon A, 10.2% for surgeon B, and 20.6% for surgeon C (P=0.024). Multivariate analysis identified pT stage, ascites, and the investigating surgeon to be significant risk factors for positive peritoneal cytology.
The peritoneal lavage cytology results were significantly affected by the investigating surgeon, providing strong evidence of test execution variation that could be related to poor diagnostic accuracy and stage migration in patients with advanced gastric cancer.
Journal of Gastric Cancer 12/2013; 13(4):214-25. DOI:10.5230/jgc.2013.13.4.214
Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 11/2007; 89(7):672-4. DOI:10.1308/003588407X209518 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.