Prognostic relevance of gastric cancer staging by endoscopic ultrasound

Jürgensen, Christian; Brand, Jana; Nothnagel, Michael; Arlt, Alexander; Neser, Frank; Habeck, Jörg-Olaf; Schreiber, Stefan; Stölzel, Ulrich; Zeitz, Martin; Hampe, Jochen

doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2558-z

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results indicated that gastric cancers that were detected using US were at a more advanced stage compared with those that were not detectable using US. The advancement of gastric cancer is represented with T staging (23), which can be evaluated using transabdominal US with patients drinking water prior to the scan, or using endoscopic US (24,25). In the current study, it was difficult to evaluate pT staging using US as the patients did not consume water prior to screening, and thus pT staging was evaluated subsequent to surgical resection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Detection of gastric cancer using transabdominal ultrasonography is associated with tumor diameter and depth of invasion

Tomizawa

Shinozaki

Fugo

et al. 2015

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Gastric cancer is occasionally diagnosed using transabdominal ultrasonography (US) during screening or investigation of patients with abdominal symptoms. Therefore, the present study analyzed the association of the tumor diameter, pathological T (pT) staging and depth of invasion with the detection of gastric cancer using US. Patient records were analyzed retrospectively and 13 patients were enrolled, who underwent US screening prior to endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery. In total, 5 patients were diagnosed with gastric cancer using US (positive detection group), while US was unable to detect the gastric cancer in 8 patients (negative detection group). The tumor diameter and depth of invasion were determined by pathologists. One-way analysis of variance or the χ 2 test was performed. Wall thickness in gastric cancer cases ranged between 7 and 20 mm (mean, 12.2±5.9 mm), as measured using abdominal US. The hemoglobin level was significantly lower in the positive detection patients compared with the negative detection patients (P=0.0455). In addition, the diameters of the gastric wall in the negative and positive detection patients were 24.5±16.4 and 54.4±26.2 mm, respectively (P=0.0266). These results indicate that gastric cancer in the positive detection patients were at a more advanced-stage compared with that in the negative detection patients. Furthermore, gastric cancer with a stage over pT2 was diagnosed using abdominal US (P=0.0242), whereas stage pT1a gastric cancer was not detected by abdominal US. Gastric tumors invading deeper than the submucosa were diagnosed using US (P=0.0242). However, the gastric cancer cases limited to the mucosa remained undetected. In conclusion, the detection of gastric cancer correlated well with the tumor diameter, pT staging and depth of invasion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Detection of gastric cancer using transabdominal ultrasonography is associated with tumor diameter and depth of invasion

Tomizawa

Shinozaki

Fugo

et al. 2015

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regards to predicting survival, contrasting data have been reported. Jurgensen et al reported preoperative EUS T staging and pathologic T staging equally predicted survival while more recently, Spolverato et al, concluded that survival in patients with advanced preoperative EUS T staging was significantly overestimated when compared to surgical pathologic staging .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regards to predicting survival, contrasting data have been reported. Jurgensen that survival in patients with advanced preoperative EUS T staging was significantly overestimated when compared to surgical pathologic staging [20,21]. Multi-detector row CT imaging is an additional modality for determining preoperative TNM staging.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of EUS and CT imaging in preoperative gastric cancer staging

Fairweather

Jajoo

Sainani

et al. 2015

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zusammenfassend sollte der EUS komplementär zur CT für die Selektion von Patienten für eine perioperative Therapie eingesetzt werden. Ungeachtet der eingeschränkten EUS-Genauigkeit insbesondere für die Differenzierung zwischen T2-und T3-Tumoren und beim Lymphknotenstaging erlaubt die endosonografische Stratifizierung in Risikogruppen (Serosainfiltration, Aszitesnachweis, Lymphknotenbefall) zwischen Patienten mit einer relativ günstigen Prognose (hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit einer R0-Resektion und günstige 5-Jahres-Prognose) und Patienten mit ungünstiger Prognose (eingeschränkte Wahrscheinlichkeit einer R0-Resektion und ungünstige 5-Jahres-Prognose) zu diskriminieren [306,307,[318][319][320]342]. Die Auswertung der prospektiven Daten eines US-amerikanischen tertiären onkologischen Zentrums zeigte eine Genauigkeit der Risikostratifizierung durch EUS von 73 %.…”

Section: Leber Und Mediastinale Lymphknotenunclassified