PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of videolaparoscopy (VLP) in gastric cancer staging, particularly for the detection of peritoneal cancer, to verify its impact in changing the therapeutic conduct, as well as defining the characteristics of the group that can benefit from VLP as staging method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted from May 2011 to March 2013. Thirty-two patients with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent conventional staging together with VLP staging. RESULTS: VLP identified peritoneal disease in 22.6% of patients. Sensitivity was 86%, and specificity was 100%. In the group with non-Borrmann IV, <8 cm tumors, and without evidence of lymphadenomegaly, VLP identified peritoneal implants in 23.1% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: VLP is a safe procedure capable of improving the accuracy of gastric cancer staging. There is no justification for failing to perform laparoscopy in patients with <8 cm, non-Borrmann type IV tumors and without evidence of lymphadenomegaly on preoperative examinations.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of videolaparoscopy (VLP) in gastric cancer staging, particularly for the detection of peritoneal cancer, to verify its impact in changing the therapeutic conduct, as well as defining the characteristics of the group that can benefit from VLP as staging method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted from May 2011 to March 2013. Thirty-two patients with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent conventional staging together with VLP staging. RESULTS: VLP identified peritoneal disease in 22.6% of patients. Sensitivity was 86%, and specificity was 100%. In the group with non-Borrmann IV, <8 cm tumors, and without evidence of lymphadenomegaly, VLP identified peritoneal implants in 23.1% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: VLP is a safe procedure capable of improving the accuracy of gastric cancer staging. There is no justification for failing to perform laparoscopy in patients with <8 cm, non-Borrmann type IV tumors and without evidence of lymphadenomegaly on preoperative examinations.
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Hannah Fullington; Linda S Hynan; Adam C Yopp; Mathew M Augustine; Patricio M Polanco; Michael A Choti; John C Mansour; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: H J F Brenkman; E C Gertsen; E Vegt; R van Hillegersberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; S S Gisbertz; M D P Luyer; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; J J B van Lanschot; S M Lagarde; W O de Steur; H H Hartgrink; J H M B Stoot; K W E Hulsewe; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; M J van Det; E A Kouwenhoven; D L van der Peet; F Daams; J W van Sandick; N C T van Grieken; J Heisterkamp; B van Etten; J W Haveman; J P Pierie; F Jonker; A Y Thijssen; E J T Belt; P van Duijvendijk; E Wassenaar; H W M van Laarhoven; F J Wessels; N Haj Mohammad; H F van Stel; G W J Frederix; P D Siersema; J P Ruurda Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jordan J Nostedt; Clifford Sample; Sunita Ghosh; Simon R Turner; Lloyd Mack; Michael McCall; Daniel Schiller Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Stefano Rausei; Laura Ruspi; Federica Galli; Vincenzo Pappalardo; Giuseppe Di Rocco; Francesco Martignoni; Francesco Frattini; Francesca Rovera; Luigi Boni; Gianlorenzo Dionigi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742