Sonographic staging of gastric cancer

Derchi, L. E.; Biggi, E; Rollandi, G. A.; Cicio, GR; Neumaier, C. E.

doi:10.2214/ajr.140.2.273

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study on preoperative assessment of liver metastases from GI malignancies confirms that ultrasound scanning is fairly effective, thus having its own role in the preoperative staging [Bryan et al, 1977;Derchi et al, 1983;Finlay et al, 1982;McArdle, 19761. In our hands, liver ultrasound correctly diagnosed multiple liver metastases in 15 out of 18 patients with positive findings at laparotomy (= 83.8%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Combined ultrasounds and CEA in preoperative assessment of hepatic metastases from gastrointestinal malignancies

Colizza

Lupattelli

Fazio

et al. 1985

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A consecutive series of 100 patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies entered a prospective controlled study of liver metastases performed by ultrasound echography, CEA, hepatic enzymes (only alkaline phosphatase (AP) was found to be somehow significant). Laparotomic inspection and palpation were taken as objective control of ultrasound scan. Eighteen out of the 100 patients showed diffuse hepatic metastases at surgery (all controlled histologically). Hepatic echography correctly diagnosed liver metastases in 15 out of these 18 patients (= 83.8% sensitivity); two more cases (hepatic fibroangiomas) were interpreted as metastases (= 89.9% specificity). CEA-RIA assay was pathologic (greater than 10 ng/ml) in all of the 18 patients with liver metastases; 21 out of the 82 without liver metastases were CEA positive (difference of mean values statistically significant at P less than 0.01). The only significant hepatic enzyme was AP, which was pathologic in 12 out of 18 patients with liver metastases. The comparative evaluation of the three tests showed that ultrasound scanning missed three cases of diffuse hepatic metastases, which, however, were CEA positive, while AP could not help to correct such misdiagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Combined ultrasounds and CEA in preoperative assessment of hepatic metastases from gastrointestinal malignancies

Colizza

Lupattelli

Fazio

et al. 1985

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data were available in 5 US studies [21-23,25,29], 4 EUS studies [30-33], 15 CT studies [21,22,29,34,36,39,40,43-48,52,53] and 4 18 F-FDG PET studies [34-36,42]. Meta-analysis was based on the bivariate model in the presence of significant heterogeneity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies reported that sensitivity of US ranged from 0.36-0.87 in detecting liver metastasis [22,25,27] and 0.05-0.33 in detecting peritoneal metastasis [25,29]. Then most of these studies excluded patients with obvious distant metastases, which might be the reason of low sensitivity of US in detecting liver and peritoneal metastases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer are operation contraindications. Systematic review to provide an overview of imaging in predicting the status of liver and peritoneum pre-therapeuticly is essential.MethodsA systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and the China Biological Medicine Databases. QUADAS was used for assessing the methodological quality of included studies and the bivariate model was used for this meta-analysis.ResultsTotally 33 studies were included (8 US studies, 5 EUS studies, 22 CT studies, 2 MRI studies and 5 18F-FDG PET studies) and the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The result of meta-analysis showed that CT is the most sensitive imaging method [0.74 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85)] with a high rate of specificity [0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00)] in detecting hepatic metastasis, and EUS is the most sensitive imaging modality [0.34 (95% CI: 0.10-0.69) ] with a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99) in detecting peritoneal metastasis. Only two eligible MRI studies were identified and the data were not combined. The two studies found that MRI had both high sensitivity and specificity in detecting liver metastasis.ConclusionUS, EUS, CT and 18F-FDG PET did not obtain consistently high sensitivity and specificity in assessing liver and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer. The value of laparoscopy, PET/CT, DW-MRI, and new PET tracers such as 18F-FLT needs to be studied in future.

show abstract

Ultrasonographic findings in gastric cancer: In vitro and in vivo studies

Miyamoto

Nakatani

Ida

et al. 1989

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasonography was performed in 45 cases of gastric cancer. Specimens from all 45 cases of gastric cancer were subjects to ultrasonographic study by the water immersion method for comparison with histology. In 32 of these 45 cases in vivo ultrasonographic evaluation was performed prospectively. The overall accuracy rates for the diagnosis of the depth of cancerous invasion were almost 80% in both in vitro and in vivo studies. In vivo ultrasonographic findings agreed well with those from the specimen studies. Ultrasonography was considered to be useful in the diagnosis of gastric malignancies.

show abstract

Sonographic staging of gastric cancer

Cited by 16 publications

References 6 publications

Combined ultrasounds and CEA in preoperative assessment of hepatic metastases from gastrointestinal malignancies

Combined ultrasounds and CEA in preoperative assessment of hepatic metastases from gastrointestinal malignancies

Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review

Ultrasonographic findings in gastric cancer: In vitro and in vivo studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About