A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Endoscopic Ultrasound Predicts Risk of Occult Intra-Abdominal Metastases in Localized Gastric Cancer: A Validation Study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In gastric cancer (GC) patients without imaging evidence of distant metastasis, diagnostic staging laparoscopy (DSL) is recommended to detect radiographically occult peritoneal metastasis (M1). DSL carries a risk for morbidity and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. Use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to improve patient selection for DSL has been proposed but not validated. We aimed to validate an EUS-based risk classification system predicting risk for M1 disease.

Methods: We retrospectively identified all GC patients without positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) evidence of distant metastasis who underwent staging EUS followed by DSL between 2010 and 2020. T1-2, N0 disease was EUS "low-risk"; T3-4 and/or N+ disease was "high-risk".

Results: A total of 68 patients met inclusion criteria. DSL identified radiographically occult M1 disease in 17 patients (25%). Most patients had EUS T3 tumors (n = 59, 87%) and 48 (71%) patients were node-positive (N+). Five (7%) patients were classified EUS "low-risk" and 63 (93%) were classified "high-risk". Of 63 "high-risk" patients, 17 (27%) had M1 disease. The ability of "low-risk" EUS to predict M0 disease at laparoscopy was 100% and DSL would have been avoided in five patients (7%). This stratification algorithm showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5-100%) and a specificity of 9.8% (95% CI: 3.3-21.4%).

Conclusions: Use of an EUS-based risk classification system in GC patients without imaging evidence of metastasis helps identify a subset of patients at low-risk for laparoscopic M1 disease who may avoid DSL and proceed directly to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or resection with curative intent. Larger, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9990533PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/gr1589DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients
11
endoscopic ultrasound
8
gastric cancer
8
patients imaging
8
imaging evidence
8
evidence distant
8
distant metastasis
8
radiographically occult
8
eus-based risk
8
risk classification
8

Similar Publications