OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of preoperative imaging studies and the intraoperative assessment of perihepatic lymph nodes in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy for malignancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Perihepatic lymph node status is an important prognostic factor for patients undergoing hepatic resection for 1(o) and metastatic cancer. The value of preoperative imaging studies and intraoperative assessment of perihepatic nodes is unknown. METHODS: Perihepatic lymph nodes were sampled in 100 patients undergoing resection for 1(o) and metastatic hepatic malignancy. At the time of sampling, participating surgeons assigned a clinical suspicion score (scale, 1-5: 1 = clinically negative, 5 = clinically positive). Preoperative CT scans and PET scans were reviewed in a blinded fashion by 2 radiologists. Clinical assessment, CT, and PET scan results were analyzed in the context of the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. RESULTS: A mean of 3.2 +/- 0.2 nodes were sampled per patient. Fifteen patients had metastatic disease in perihepatic lymph nodes; 13 had suggestive findings on preoperative CT or PET, and 2 were clinically positive at exploration. Clinical assessment had a high negative predictive value (NPV) = 99% but a low positive predictive value (PPV) = 39%. Similarly, CT scans had a high NPV = 95% and a low PPV = 30%. PET scans had a NPV = 88% and a PPV of 100%. Of the 48 patients with both negative preoperative CT and PET scans, only 1 (2.1%) had metastatic nodal disease, and this was suspected based on the clinical assessment. Of the patients with negative CT and PET scans and a negative clinical assessment (n = 39), none had involved perihepatic nodes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with 1(o) and metastatic liver cancer, the incidence of truly occult metastatic disease to perihepatic lymph nodes is low. Routine sampling of perihepatic lymph nodes will therefore have a low yield in patients without some evidence of disease on preoperative CT or PET scans or at the time of exploration.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of preoperative imaging studies and the intraoperative assessment of perihepatic lymph nodes in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy for malignancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Perihepatic lymph node status is an important prognostic factor for patients undergoing hepatic resection for 1(o) and metastatic cancer. The value of preoperative imaging studies and intraoperative assessment of perihepatic nodes is unknown. METHODS: Perihepatic lymph nodes were sampled in 100 patients undergoing resection for 1(o) and metastatic hepatic malignancy. At the time of sampling, participating surgeons assigned a clinical suspicion score (scale, 1-5: 1 = clinically negative, 5 = clinically positive). Preoperative CT scans and PET scans were reviewed in a blinded fashion by 2 radiologists. Clinical assessment, CT, and PET scan results were analyzed in the context of the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. RESULTS: A mean of 3.2 +/- 0.2 nodes were sampled per patient. Fifteen patients had metastatic disease in perihepatic lymph nodes; 13 had suggestive findings on preoperative CT or PET, and 2 were clinically positive at exploration. Clinical assessment had a high negative predictive value (NPV) = 99% but a low positive predictive value (PPV) = 39%. Similarly, CT scans had a high NPV = 95% and a low PPV = 30%. PET scans had a NPV = 88% and a PPV of 100%. Of the 48 patients with both negative preoperative CT and PET scans, only 1 (2.1%) had metastatic nodal disease, and this was suspected based on the clinical assessment. Of the patients with negative CT and PET scans and a negative clinical assessment (n = 39), none had involved perihepatic nodes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with 1(o) and metastatic liver cancer, the incidence of truly occult metastatic disease to perihepatic lymph nodes is low. Routine sampling of perihepatic lymph nodes will therefore have a low yield in patients without some evidence of disease on preoperative CT or PET scans or at the time of exploration.
Authors: N Kokudo; T Sato; M Seki; H Ohta; K Azekura; M Ueno; T Matsubara; A Yanagisawa; Y Kato; T Takahashi Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Christophe Laurent; Antonio Sa Cunha; Eric Rullier; Denis Smith; Anne Rullier; Jean Saric Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John M Kane; Morton S Kahlenberg; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John F Gibbs; Nicholas J Petrelli Journal: Am Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Giorgio Ercolani; Gian Luca Grazi; Matteo Ravaioli; Walter Franco Grigioni; Matteo Cescon; Andrea Gardini; Massimo Del Gaudio; Antonino Cavallari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 12.969