Assessment of the use of computed tomography colonography in early detection of peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastric cancer: A prospective cohort study

Abstract

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is one of the most frequent forms of gastric cancer recurrence. In this study, we aimed to use computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) to detect signs of PM earlier in patients in whom PM was suspected but not yet diagnosed. CTC was used to evaluate patients with clinical symptoms or general CT findings that were suspicious but not sufficient to confirm PM. In total, 18 patients with suspected PM were enrolled. Ten patients (55.6%) had PM on CTC. Abnormal colonic deformities were identified at locations other than those of the lesions detected by general CT in seven patients. The sensitivity and specificity of CTC for the detection of PM were 83.3% and 100%, respectively. The median overall survival after CTC was 201 days in the CTC-positive group, which was significantly shorter than that in the CTC-negative group (945 days, p = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, a positive CTC finding was the only factor independently associated with survival (p = 0.005). According to our experience with 18 patients, CTC can be an alternative to conventional imaging for early detection of PM. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to confirm and validate these findings. University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR): Registration number: UMIN000044167.

A call for standardized reporting of early-onset colorectal peritoneal metastases

“…PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Sharma et al, 2021;Tabchouri et al, 2021;Yang et al, 2021;Zhou et al, 2021;Flood et al, 2022;Iwasaki et al, 2022;McCleary et al, 2022;Meyer et al, 2022;Nagao et al, 2022).…”

“…Forty-nine papers were excluded from the review for age-related reasons: six studies had 0–3 patients under age 50. Forty-three studies included patients under age 50 but did not present results stratified by age or did not stratify using an age ≤50 years old for stratification; one study provided above/below-age data but failed to include symbols (≥ or ≤) or descriptive text to indicate which group included the cutoff age (Sternberg et al , 1994; Nakae et al , 1995; Nakamura et al , 1999; Akasu et al , 2000; el-Ghazawy et al , 2001; Luna-Pérez et al , 2002; Al-Shamsi et al , 2003; Kanemitsu et al , 2003; Carmignani et al , 2004; Lloyd et al , 2006; Nervi et al , 2006; Lawson et al , 2008; Sobhani et al , 2008; Song et al , 2009; Aghili et al , 2010; Lemmens et al , 2011; Sjo et al , 2011; Lieu et al ., 2014; Park et al , 2014; Saluja et al , 2014; Adachi et al , 2015; Lam et al , 2015; Sica et al , 2015; Simkens et al , 2015; 2016; Maillet et al , 2016; Wang et al , 2016; Cicero et al , 2017; Hojo et al , 2017; Patil et al , 2017; Cigdem Arslan et al , 2018; Kondo et al , 2021; Melli et al , 2021; Rieser et al , 2021a, 2021b; Sharma et al , 2021; Tabchouri et al , 2021; Yang et al , 2021; Zhou et al , 2021; Flood et al , 2022; Iwasaki et al , 2022; McCleary et al , 2022; Meyer et al , 2022; Nagao et al , 2022).…”