• Textural analysis from computed tomography can be applied in gastric cancer. • Preoperative non-invasive texture features are related to prognosis in gastric cancer. • Texture analysis could help to evaluate the aggressiveness of this tumour.

Background Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) is the most severe surgical complication after gastrectomy. This study was designed to assess the incidence, to observe the consequences, and to identify the risk factors associated with DSF after gastrectomy. Methods All procedures involving total or sub-total gastrectomy for cancer, performed between January 1987 and June 2012 in a single institution, were prospectively entered into a computerized database. Risk factors analysis was performed between DSF patients, patients with complete uneventful postoperative course and patients with other major surgical complications. Results Over this 25 years period, 1287 gastrectomies were performed. DSF was present in 32 cases (2.5 %). Mean post-operative onset was 6.6 days. 19 patients were treated conservatively and 13 surgically. Mean DSF healing time was 31.2 and 45.2 days in the two groups, respectively. Mortality was registered in 3 cases (9.37 %), due to septic shock (2 cases) and bleeding (1 case). In monovariate analysis, heart disease (p \ 0.001), pre-operative lymphocytes number (p = 0.003) and absence of manual reinforcement over duodenal stump (p \ 0.001) were found to be DSF-specific risk factors, whereas liver cirrhosis (p = 0.002), pre-operative albumin levels (p \ 0.001) and blood losses (p = 0.002) were found to be non-DSF-specific risk factors. In multivariate analysis heart disease (OR 5.18; p \ 0.001), liver cirrhosis (OR 13.2; p \ 0.001), bio-humoral nutritional status impairment (OR 2.29; p = 0.05), blood losses [300 mL (OR 4.47; p = 0.001) and absence of manual reinforcement over duodenal stump (OR 30.47; p \ 0.001) were found to be independent risk factors for DSF development. Conclusions Duodenal stump fistula still remains a lifethreatening complication after gastric surgery. Co-morbidity factors, nutritional status impairment and surgical technical difficulties should be considered as important risk factors in developing this awful complication.

Background The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the preoperative locoregional staging of gastric cancer. Methods This study had Institutional Review Board approval, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Fifty-two patients with biopsy-proven gastric cancer underwent preoperative 1.5-T MRI, 64-channel MDCT and EUS. All images were analysed blind, and the results were compared with histopathological findings according to the seventh edition of the TNM classification. After the population had been divided on the basis of the local invasion (T1-3 vs T4a-b) and nodal involvement (N0 vs N?), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated and diagnostic performance measures were assessed using the McNemar test. Results For T staging, EUS showed higher sensitivity (94 %) than MDCT and MRI (65 and 76 %; p = 0.02 and p = 0.08). MDCT and MRI had significantly higher specificity (91 and 89 %) than EUS (60 %) (p = 0.0009 and p = 0.003). Adding MRI to MDCT or EUS did not result in significant differences for sensitivity. For N staging, EUS showed higher sensitivity (92 %) than MRI and MDCT (69 and 73 %; p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). MDCT showed better specificity (81 %) than EUS and MRI (58 and 73 %; p = 0.03 and p = 0.15). Conclusions Our prospective study confirmed the leading role of EUS and MDCT in the staging of gastric cancer and did not prove, at present, the value of the clinical use of MRI.

Background Resection margin (RM) involvement is associated with negative prognosis after gastrectomy. Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) analysis allows radical resection to be achieved in a single operation but is timeconsuming and resource-consuming. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors associated with RM involvement to identify patients who would benefit from IFS analysis. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer from 2000 to 2014 in six Italian hospitals. RM status was assessed by IFS analysis and/or definitive histopathology examination. A set of 21 potential risk factors were compared in a multivariate analysis between patients with positive RMs on IFS analysis or definitive histopathology examination and a control cohort of similar patients with negative RMs, with the samples stratified into three subgroups (T1, T2-T4 Lauren intestinal pattern, T2-T4 Lauren diffuse/mixed pattern). Results One hundred forty-five patients had positive RMs. Survival was significantly worse in positive RM patients than in negative RM patients (89.5 months vs 28.9 months). Multivariate analysis showed that in T1 cancers a margin distance of less than 2 cm is a risk factor for RM involvement (odds ratio 15.7), in T2-T4 intestinal pattern cancers, serosa invasion (odds ratio 6.0), EGJ location (odds ratio 4.1), and a margin distance of less than 3 cm (odds ratio 4.0) are independent risk factors, and in T2-T4 diffuse/mixed pattern cancers, lymphatic infiltration (odds ratio 4.2), tumor diameter greater than 4 cm (odds ratio 3.5), EGJ location (odds ratio 2.8), and serosa invasion (odds ratio 2.2) are independent risk factors. Conclusions Survival after gastrectomy is negatively affected by positive RMs. IFS analysis should be routinely used in patients with a high risk of positive RMs, especially in diffuse pattern cancers.

No abstract