The yield of diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal lavage in gastric adenocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) with peritoneal lavage has been adopted as a standard staging procedure for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Evaluation of the value of DL is important given ongoing improvements in diagnostic imaging and treatment. As contemporary data from European centres are sparse, this retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the yield of DL in patients with potentially curable gastric cancer, and to identify predictive factors for peritoneal metastases. METHODS: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach, treated between January 2016 and December 2018, were identified from institutional databases of two high volume European Upper-GI centres. Patients who underwent a DL with peritoneal lavage for potentially curable disease after clinical staging with imaging (cT1-4N0-3M0) were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive DL, defined as macroscopic metastatic disease, positive peritoneal cytology washings (PC+) or locally irresectable disease. RESULTS: Some 80 of 327 included patients (24.5%) had a positive DL, excluding these patients from neoadjuvant treatment (66 of 327; 20.2%) and/or surgical resection (76 of 327; 23.2%). In 34 of 327 patients (10.3%), macroscopic metastatic disease was seen, with peritoneal deposits in 30 of these patients. Only 16 of 30 patients with peritoneal disease had positive cytology. Some 41 of 327 patients (12.5%) that underwent DL had PC+ in the absence of macroscopic metastases and five patients (1.5%) had an irresectable primary tumour. Diffuse type carcinoma had the highest risk of peritoneal dissemination, irrespective of cT and cN categories. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic yield of staging laparoscopy is high, changing the management in approximately one quarter of patients. DL should be considered in patients with diffuse type carcinoma irrespective of cT and cN categories.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.