| Literature DB >> 27009101 |
Ziyu Li1, Sheng Ao1,2, Zhaode Bu1, Aiwen Wu1, Xiaojiang Wu1, Fei Shan1, Xin Ji1, Yan Zhang3, Zhaodong Xing1, Jiafu Ji4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) for harvesting lymph nodes (LNs) in cases of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).Entities:
Keywords: Advanced gastric cancer; Carbon nanoparticles; D2 gastrectomy; LN harvesting
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27009101 PMCID: PMC4806484 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0835-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Trial scheme
Fig. 2a Carbon nanoparticles were injected into the subserosa of the stomach around the tumor; the arrows show the injection sites. b D2 dissection performed in total gastrectomy; spleen-preserving station no. 10 was resected. SV splenic vessels, PGA posterior gastric artery. c D2 dissection performed in distal gastrectomy; portions of dissected LNs are shown. CHA common hepatic artery, LGA left gastric artery, LGV left gastric vein, RGV right gastric vessels, DS duodenal stump.
Clinical characteristics of patients
| Variable | Pattern group | Experimental group | Control |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 10 (9.5) | 9 (9.5) | 0.705 |
| Female | 5 (5.5) | 6 (5.5) | ||
| Age (years) | >70 | 2 (1.5) | 1 (1.5) | |
| 50–70 | 11 (9.5) | 8 (9.5) | 0.380 | |
| <50 | 2 (4.0) | 6 (4.0) | ||
| BMI | 25.45 ± 3.60 | 23.80 ± 2.44 | 0.155 | |
| Lauren type | Intestinal | 3 (3.0) | 3 (3.0) | |
| Nonintestinal | 12 (12.0) | 12 (12.0) | 1.000 | |
| Location | Upper | 5 (4.5) | 4 (4.5) | |
| Middle | 2 (3.0) | 4 (3.0) | 0.788 | |
| Lower | 8 (7.5) | 7 (7.5) | ||
| Surgery | DSG | 7 (7.0) | 7 (7.0) | |
| TG | 8 (8.0) | 8 (8.0) | 1.000 | |
| Stage | IB | 0 (1.0) | 2 (1.0) | |
| II | 5 (6.0) | 7 (6.0) | 0.242 | |
| III | 10 (8.0) | 6 (8.0) | ||
| Operation time (min) | 214.7 ± 42.9 | 212.9 ± 55.7 | 0.922 | |
| Bleeding (mL) | 110.0 ± 63.2 | 98.7 ± 66.2 | 0.635 | |
| Complication | Yes | 5 (4.0) | 3 (4.0) | |
| No | 10 (11.0) | 12 (11.0) | 0.682 |
*Analyzed by Student’s t test or the χ 2 test
Fig. 3a Harvested LNs from every patient. b Total number of harvested LNs and metastatic LNs in the experimental and control groups. c Harvested LNs from every station
Mean number of harvested LNs
| Number | Means of lymph nodes |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 15 | 38.33 | |
| Control group | 15 | 28.27 | 0.041 |
Fig. 4a Mean diameters of LNs in each patient. b Mean diameter of LNs in station no. 3. c Mean diameter of LNs in station no. 1
Mean diameter of harvested LNs
| Number | Means of diameter (mm) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 15 | 3.32 | |
| Control group | 15 | 4.30 | 0.023 |
Model for predicting total number of LNs
| Model |
| SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constanta | 11.628 | 7.839 | 1.483 | 0.164 |
| CNP-staining LNs | 1.062 | 0.329 | 3.223 | 0.007 |
| Metastatic LNs | 2.373 | 1.126 | 0.475 | 0.035 |
|
| 0.537 | |||
| Sample size | 15 |
Dependent variable: number of lymph nodes (Y); predictors: constant, CNP-staining LNs (X1), metastatic LNs (X2)
aGender, age, BMI, location, surgery, operation time, bleeding, diameter, and pathological stage were included
Fig. 5Small LNs were stained by carbon nanoparticles so that they would not be left in case of micrometastases (arrows show the small LNs)