Naruhiko Ikoma1, Jeannelyn S Estrella2, Wayne L Hofstetter3, Jaffer A Ajani4, Keith F Fournier1, Paul F Mansfield1, John M Skibber1, Brian D Badgwell5. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 4. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. bbadgwell@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the majority of US institutions, gastrectomy specimens are sent for pathologic examination without surgeon assessment or standardized technique of lymph node (LN) assessment for gastric cancer. We conducted a quality improvement project at a US cancer center utilizing surgeon assessment of gastric LNs, and created a video to illustrate a technique of standardized lymph node assessment. METHODS: Convenience sampling was employed among patients with gastric adenocarcinomas who underwent curative-intent D2 gastrectomy between July 2016 and June 2017. For each patient, a surgeon assessed gastric LNs by harvesting individual LNs, followed by conventional evaluation by a pathologist. RESULTS: We enrolled 17 patients for this quality improvement project. Eight patients underwent total gastrectomy, and nine patients underwent subtotal gastrectomy. Twelve patients underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy, three underwent preoperative chemotherapy alone, and two underwent upfront surgery. The median number of examined LNs was 43. All patients had ≥ 16 LNs examined, and 88% of patients had ≥ 30 LNs examined. CONCLUSION: Surgeon assessment of gastric LN specimens was feasible and effective to provide high-quality pathologic LN assessment after gastrectomy in gastric adenocarcinoma patients. Standardization of the technical methods for gastric LN evaluation is needed to improve the accuracy and quality of gastric cancer staging in the US. The provided video can help inform standardization of gastric LN assessment.
INTRODUCTION: In the majority of US institutions, gastrectomy specimens are sent for pathologic examination without surgeon assessment or standardized technique of lymph node (LN) assessment for gastric cancer. We conducted a quality improvement project at a US cancer center utilizing surgeon assessment of gastric LNs, and created a video to illustrate a technique of standardized lymph node assessment. METHODS: Convenience sampling was employed among patients with gastric adenocarcinomas who underwent curative-intent D2 gastrectomy between July 2016 and June 2017. For each patient, a surgeon assessed gastric LNs by harvesting individual LNs, followed by conventional evaluation by a pathologist. RESULTS: We enrolled 17 patients for this quality improvement project. Eight patients underwent total gastrectomy, and nine patients underwent subtotal gastrectomy. Twelve patients underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy, three underwent preoperative chemotherapy alone, and two underwent upfront surgery. The median number of examined LNs was 43. All patients had ≥ 16 LNs examined, and 88% of patients had ≥ 30 LNs examined. CONCLUSION: Surgeon assessment of gastric LN specimens was feasible and effective to provide high-quality pathologic LN assessment after gastrectomy in gastric adenocarcinomapatients. Standardization of the technical methods for gastric LN evaluation is needed to improve the accuracy and quality of gastric cancer staging in the US. The provided video can help inform standardization of gastric LN assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ex vivo lymphadenectomy; Gastric cancer; Lymph nodes; Pathology; Staging
Authors: Hun Jin Kim; Jeong Seon Jo; Soo Young Lee; Chang Hyun Kim; Young Jin Kim; Hyeong Rok Kim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J L Dikken; N C T van Grieken; P Krijnen; M Gönen; L H Tang; A Cats; M Verheij; M F Brennan; C J H van de Velde; D G Coit Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Daniel C Damin; Mário A Rosito; Paulo C Contu; Cláudio Tarta; Paulo R Ferreira; Lucia M Kliemann; Gilberto Schwartsmann Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Cheguevara Afaneh; Adam Levy; Luke Selby; Geoffrey Ku; Laura Tang; Sam S Yoon; Daniel Coit; Vivian E Strong Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Maarten C J Anderegg; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Vamshi P Jagadesham; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Arul Immanuel; Sybren L Meijer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; S Michael Griffin; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 12.969