Cargando…

Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal tumor seeding is a common form of recurrence after gastric cancer surgery. The finding of free tumor cells and/or elevation of tumor markers in the peritoneal fluid could predict intraperitoneal tumor recurrence. The results of these examination can be used for indication of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hoskovec, David, Varga, Jozef, Dytrych, Petr, Konecna, Ellen, Matek, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420630/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28507577
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.64044
_version_ 1783234428959457280
author Hoskovec, David
Varga, Jozef
Dytrych, Petr
Konecna, Ellen
Matek, Jan
author_facet Hoskovec, David
Varga, Jozef
Dytrych, Petr
Konecna, Ellen
Matek, Jan
author_sort Hoskovec, David
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal tumor seeding is a common form of recurrence after gastric cancer surgery. The finding of free tumor cells and/or elevation of tumor markers in the peritoneal fluid could predict intraperitoneal tumor recurrence. The results of these examination can be used for indication of aggressive treatment modalities such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have operated on 105 patients suffering from gastric cancer. The control group consisted of 12 patients without malignant disease. Peritoneal lavage fluid or ascites was collected immediately after laparotomy and examined by cytology and biochemistry (levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and Ca 19–9). Sensitivity, specificity, stage correlation and overall survival were observed. RESULTS: Elevation of tumor markers or the finding of free intraperitoneal tumor cells predicts recurrence. The prognosis of these patients is same as in stage IV TNM classification with median survival time less than 1 year (p = 0.713). Patients with negative cytology have median survival time 5 years contrary to them with positive cytology (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of the cytology was 34% and specificity was 85%. Sensitivity of biochemistry was 53% (combination of both markers) and specificity was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of peritoneal fluid examination for the prognosis. We cannot recommend routine use as an indicator for HIPEC due to low sensitivity, but the result of cytological examination is an independent factor for patient survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5420630
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54206302017-05-15 Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer Hoskovec, David Varga, Jozef Dytrych, Petr Konecna, Ellen Matek, Jan Arch Med Sci Clinical Research INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal tumor seeding is a common form of recurrence after gastric cancer surgery. The finding of free tumor cells and/or elevation of tumor markers in the peritoneal fluid could predict intraperitoneal tumor recurrence. The results of these examination can be used for indication of aggressive treatment modalities such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have operated on 105 patients suffering from gastric cancer. The control group consisted of 12 patients without malignant disease. Peritoneal lavage fluid or ascites was collected immediately after laparotomy and examined by cytology and biochemistry (levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and Ca 19–9). Sensitivity, specificity, stage correlation and overall survival were observed. RESULTS: Elevation of tumor markers or the finding of free intraperitoneal tumor cells predicts recurrence. The prognosis of these patients is same as in stage IV TNM classification with median survival time less than 1 year (p = 0.713). Patients with negative cytology have median survival time 5 years contrary to them with positive cytology (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of the cytology was 34% and specificity was 85%. Sensitivity of biochemistry was 53% (combination of both markers) and specificity was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of peritoneal fluid examination for the prognosis. We cannot recommend routine use as an indicator for HIPEC due to low sensitivity, but the result of cytological examination is an independent factor for patient survival. Termedia Publishing House 2016-11-29 2017-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5420630/ /pubmed/28507577 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.64044 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Termedia & Banach http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Hoskovec, David
Varga, Jozef
Dytrych, Petr
Konecna, Ellen
Matek, Jan
Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title_full Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title_fullStr Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title_full_unstemmed Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title_short Peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
title_sort peritoneal lavage examination as a prognostic tool in cases of gastric cancer
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420630/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28507577
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.64044
work_keys_str_mv AT hoskovecdavid peritoneallavageexaminationasaprognostictoolincasesofgastriccancer
AT vargajozef peritoneallavageexaminationasaprognostictoolincasesofgastriccancer
AT dytrychpetr peritoneallavageexaminationasaprognostictoolincasesofgastriccancer
AT konecnaellen peritoneallavageexaminationasaprognostictoolincasesofgastriccancer
AT matekjan peritoneallavageexaminationasaprognostictoolincasesofgastriccancer