Pretherapeutic laparoscopic staging in advanced gastric carcinoma

Citation
H. Feussner et al., Pretherapeutic laparoscopic staging in advanced gastric carcinoma, ENDOSCOPY, 31(5), 1999, pp. 342-347
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Surgery,"Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
ENDOSCOPY
ISSN journal
0013726X → ACNP
Volume
31
Issue
5
Year of publication
1999
Pages
342 - 347
Database
ISI
SICI code
0013-726X(199906)31:5<342:PLSIAG>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
Background and Study Aims: Direct visualization of the abdominal cavity by laparoscopy prior to multimodal treatment may be capable of improving the d iagnostic precision of gastric cancer staging. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether diagnostic laparoscopy can influence treatment strategies in gastric cancer staged T3 and T4 by preoperative diagnostic tests. Patients and Methods: Extended diagnostic laparoscopy (EDL) was carried out in 111 patients with advanced gastric cancer staged T3 or T4 by computed t omography (CT) and endoluminal ultrasound (EUS). On Lauren's classification of gastric cancer, 46 % of the lesions were of the intestinal type and 54 % of the nonintestinal type. EDL was carried out with the patients under ge neral anesthesia, and included visual inspection of the abdomen, with surgi cal exploration of initially inaccessible regions, laparoscopic ultrasound examination, peritoneal lavage, and biopsies. The information provided by l aparoscopy was classified as 1) no additional information, 2) important add itional findings independent of the tumor stage, 3) downgrading of the tumo r to a more favorable stage, and 4) upgrading of the tumor to a less favora ble stage. The results of EDL were then compared with those obtained by son ography, CT and EUS in combination. Results: EDL was performed successfully in 107 patients. In 56 of the 111 p atients (50.5 %), no additional findings were obtained. In 5.4 % of cases, additional unforeseen information was found, not connected with the tumor b ut altering the management. EDL altered the preoperative diagnosis in 51 of the 111 patients (46.0 %), leading to changes in management in 45 of them (40.5 %). EUS provided additional information in eight cases (7.2 % of the whole group, or 15.7 % of those in whom the diagnosis had to be changed). F our metastases were detected using EDL. It was possible to rule out periton eal spread in four patients, but it was newly detected in 26. Conclusions: Additional information by EDL about the tumor stage in gastric cancer led to a modification of the therapeutic strategy in 40 % of patien ts, in spite of earlier comprehensive diagnostic work-up using modern imagi ng procedures. EDL should therefore be mandatory if neoadjuvant treatment i s planned, in order to avoid either undertreatment or overtreatment of this type of tumor.