Masaki Ohashi1, Shinji Morita1, Takeo Fukagawa1, Takeyuki Wada1, Ryoji Kushima2, Hiroaki Onaya3, Hitoshi Katai4. 1. Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. 2. Pathology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Diagnostic Radiology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. hkatai@ncc.go.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative N staging is essential for the best treatment planning in patients with gastric carcinoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative N staging using contrast-enhanced multi-detector row computed tomography (CE-MDCT) in patients with resectable cT2-4 gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 218 patients who underwent a gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for previously untreated cT2-4 primary gastric carcinoma were studied. Preoperative N staging was performed according to the 7th (UICC) TNM Staging System using pre-specified criteria on a 64-channel CE-MDCT and was compared with postoperative pathologic N staging. RESULTS: In all 218 patients, a distal or total gastrectomy was performed. The overall accuracy of the preoperative N staging was 46.3% (101/218), with the proportion of over- and under-staging being 26.6% (58/218) and 27.1% (59/218), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for lymph node metastasis (≥pN1) were 79.1% (106/134), 50.0% (42/84), and 67.9% (148/218), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for multiple lymph node metastases (≥pN2) were 80.2% (73/91), 68.5% (87/127), and 73.4% (160/218), respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that macroscopic type 2 and ≥6 cm-sized tumors were associated with preoperative over-N staging, while macroscopic type 1/3 tumors were associated with under-N staging. CONCLUSION: Preoperative N staging with pinpoint accuracy is difficult. However, CE-MDCT offers a reasonably high sensitivity and specificity for ≥pN2 and may be useful for selecting candidates for neoadjuvant therapies. The macroscopic type and size of the primary tumor may affect the accuracy of preoperative N staging.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative N staging is essential for the best treatment planning in patients with gastric carcinoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative N staging using contrast-enhanced multi-detector row computed tomography (CE-MDCT) in patients with resectable cT2-4 gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 218 patients who underwent a gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for previously untreated cT2-4 primary gastric carcinoma were studied. Preoperative N staging was performed according to the 7th (UICC) TNM Staging System using pre-specified criteria on a 64-channel CE-MDCT and was compared with postoperative pathologic N staging. RESULTS: In all 218 patients, a distal or total gastrectomy was performed. The overall accuracy of the preoperative N staging was 46.3% (101/218), with the proportion of over- and under-staging being 26.6% (58/218) and 27.1% (59/218), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for lymph node metastasis (≥pN1) were 79.1% (106/134), 50.0% (42/84), and 67.9% (148/218), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for multiple lymph node metastases (≥pN2) were 80.2% (73/91), 68.5% (87/127), and 73.4% (160/218), respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that macroscopic type 2 and ≥6 cm-sized tumors were associated with preoperative over-N staging, while macroscopic type 1/3 tumors were associated with under-N staging. CONCLUSION: Preoperative N staging with pinpoint accuracy is difficult. However, CE-MDCT offers a reasonably high sensitivity and specificity for ≥pN2 and may be useful for selecting candidates for neoadjuvant therapies. The macroscopic type and size of the primary tumor may affect the accuracy of preoperative N staging.
Authors: Christoph U Herborn; Thomas C Lauenstein; Florian M Vogt; Randall B Lauffer; Jörg F Debatin; Stephan G Ruehm Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sook Ryun Park; Min Ju Kim; Keun Won Ryu; Jun Ho Lee; Jong Seok Lee; Byung-Ho Nam; Il Ju Choi; Young-Woo Kim Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Olivia Will; Sanjay Purkayastha; Christopher Chan; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara W Darzi; Wady Gedroyc; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Derek Zieker; Ingmar Königsrainer; Jürgen Weinreich; Stefan Beckert; Jörg Glatzle; Kay Nieselt; Sarah Bühler; Markus Löffler; Jochen Gaedcke; Hinnak Northoff; Julia G Mannheim; Stefan Wiehr; Bernd J Pichler; Claus von Weyhern; Björn L D M Brücher; Alfred Königsrainer Journal: Cell Physiol Biochem Date: 2010-08-24