Gastric Cancer Staging: Is It Time for Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

Gastric cancer (GC) is a common cancer worldwide. Its incidence and mortality vary depending on geographic area, with the highest rates in Asian countries, particularly in China, Japan, and South Korea. Accurate imaging staging has become crucial for the application of various treatment strategies, especially for curative treatments in early stages. Unfortunately, most GCs are still diagnosed at an advanced stage, with the peritoneum (61-80%), distant lymph nodes (44-50%), and liver (26-38%) as the most common metastatic locations. Metastatic disease is limited to the peritoneum in 58% of cases; in nonperitoneal distant metastases, the most involved GC metastasization site is the liver (82%). The eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging system is the most commonly used system for determining GC prognosis. Endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and 18-fluorideoxyglucose positron emission tomography are historically the most accurate imaging techniques for GC staging. However, studies have recently shown renewed interest in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a useful tool in GC staging, especially for distant metastasis assessment. The technical improvement of diffusion-weighted imaging and the increasing use of hepatobiliary contrast agents have been shown to increase the diagnostic performance of MRI, particularly for detecting peritoneal and liver metastasis. However, no principal oncological guidelines have included the use of MRI as a first-line technique for distant metastasis evaluation during the GC staging process, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. This review analyzed the role of the principal imaging techniques in GC diagnosis and staging, focusing on the potential role of MRI, especially for assessing peritoneal and liver metastases.

Paratesticular Mesenchymal Malignancies: A Single-Center Case Series, Clinical Management, and Review of Literature.

Background: Primary soft tissue sarcomas arising from the male urinary and genital tract are rare tumors, only accounting for 1% to 2% of all malignancies of the genitourinary tract. Clinical management of advanced disease is lacking in standardized recommendations due to the rarity of the disease. To date, complete and extensive surgery represents the only curative and standardized approach for localized disease, while the impact of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy and adjuvant treatments on clinical outcomes are still unclear. Similarly, a standardized systemic treatment for advanced metastatic disease is still missing. Cases Presentation: Four out of 274 patients have been identified in our sarcoma population. The mean age was 54 years (range = 45-73). The histotypes showed liposarcoma in 2 cases and leiomyosarcoma in the remaining 2 cases. In all 4 cases, the disease was localized at presentation, patients underwent complete surgery, and no adjuvant treatments were done. Three cases presented a recurrence of disease at a mean follow-up of 86 months (range = 60-106 months), more than 7 years. Two cases were treated with a second surgery and chemotherapy and 1 case only with chemotherapy. Discussion and Conclusions: Sharing data about clinical management of paratesticular mesenchymal tumors is a key issue due to the rarity of this tumor's subtype. In this article, we report the clinical history of 4 patients affected by paratesticular mesenchymal tumor. In particular, main issues of interest are the decision of postoperative treatment and systemic treatment at time of disease recurrence.

The role of metronomic capecitabine for treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

The management of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma untreatable with surgical options is based on systemic therapy with sorafenib. Due to the high rates of adverse events connected to the therapy with sorafenib, metronomic capecitabine seems a promising strategy for these patients. We analyzed the data of 38 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma recurrent after liver transplantation performed at our center. We compared the outcome of 17 patients receiving metronomic capecitabine versus 20 patients experiencing best supportive care and versus the data of the literature about treatment with sorafenib. In the group treated with metronomic capecitabine we observed an increased survival after tumor recurrence at the univariate and multivariate analysis compared to the group of best supportive care (median 22 months vs. 7 months, p < 0.01). Data from the literature on the use of sorafenib showed outcomes like our study group, with similar patient and tumoral features. The episodes of acute rejection and the tumor stage at the recurrence showed a correlation with patient survival at the univariate analysis. The metronomic capecitabine for hepatocellular cancer recurrent after liver transplantation seems effective without important adverse events and comparable results to sorafenib.

Outcome of right hepatectomies in patients older than 70 years.

HYPOTHESIS: The increasing number of elderly patients undergoing liver resections mandates updating of clinical outcomes on this specific population. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: A tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients older than 70 years who underwent right hepatectomies (including 7 extended right hepatectomies) between January 1, 1995, and October 31, 2001 (group 1) and 99 patients younger than 70 years who underwent 64 right hepatectomies and 35 extended right hepatectomies during the same period (group 2) were included for a total sample population of 122. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative clinicopathological features, intraoperative factors, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, intensive care unit requirement, hospital stay, and course of main biochemical liver function test results of groups 1 and 2 were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar for indications for surgery and the presence of underlying liver disease. Group 1 had a higher incidence of associated pulmonary diseases (21.7% vs 5%, P =.02) and patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III (ie, a patient with severe systemic disease limiting activity, but not incapacitating) (56.5% vs 26.3% of cases, P =.01). There were no differences in intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cells and in operation time. There were no in-hospital deaths in group 1; there were 2 deaths (2%) in group 2. Nine patients (39.1%) in group 1 and 32 patients (32.3%) in group 2 experienced postoperative complications (P =.53), of whom, respectively, 5 (21.7%) and 17 (17.2%) developed transient liver dysfunction (P =.56), and 4 (17.4%) and 5 (5.1%) required a supplementary intesive care unit stay (P =.06). The postoperative stay (mean [SD], 16 [14] days vs 13 [9] days, P =.88) and peak values of the aminotransferase level, total serum bilirubin level, and prothrombin time were similar in the 2 groups. The timing of the peak value of the total serum bilirubin level (mean [SD], 4.1 [4.8] days vs 2.5 [2.5] days, P =.28) and its period of normalization (mean [SD], 9.4 [10.8] days vs 6.7 [5.1] days, P =.67) were also similar for both groups. For patients with malignancies, the 3-year survival rate was 64.2% in group 1 and 53.9% in group 2 (P =.53). CONCLUSION: Being older than 70 years should not be a contraindication for major hepatectomies, provided that liver cirrhosis and severe associated medical conditions are ruled out during the preoperative evaluation.