Diagnosis and t-staging of gastric cancer: comparison of standard computed tomography and computed-tomographic pneumogastrography

Abstract

The advantages of computed tomographic pneumogastrography with the possibility of three-dimensional visualization and virtual gastroscopy in diagnosing gastric cancer are considered. The study included 479 patients with histologically diagnosed gastric cancer who were treated at the National Medical Research Center of Oncology named after N.N. Petrov from 2011 to 2018. 232 patients received preoperative chemotherapy. All patients underwent surgery: 70 —in the volume of endoscopic dissection, 40 — proximal subtotal resection, 166 — distal subtotal resection, 203 — gastrectomy. All patients at the preoperative stage underwent staging computed tomography on a 64-slice X-ray computed tomograph: 208 patients underwent computed tomography according to the standard protocol without targeted preparation of the stomach for the study, 271 patients with targeted preparation of the stomach for the study according to the computed tomographic pneumogastrography protocol. The sensitivity of the computed tomography in assessing the T-stage was assessed by comparison with pathomorphological data. Of the 208 patients who underwent computed tomography according to the standard protocol, a gastric cancer was detected in 111 (53.4%), out of 271 patients who underwent computed tomography pneumogastrography, a gastric cancer was detected in 267 (98.52%), which is a statistically significant difference in comparing computed tomography methods (Pearson, χ² — 144.223, df = 1; p < 0.001). There are statistically significant differences when comparing computed tomography according to the standard protocol and computed tomographic pneumogastrography in detecting gastric cancer for all tumor categories: T/yT1 — 8.2 and 94.4% (Pearson, χ² — 99.205, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT2 — 47.8 and 100% (Pearson, χ² — 24.681, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT3 — 72.3 and 100% (Pearson, χ² — 33.114, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT4 — 90.0 and 100% (Pearson, χ² — 4.789, df = 1; p = 0.029) respectively. There are also statistically significant differences when comparing the sensitivity of computed tomography according to the standard protocol and computed tomographic pneumogastrography in determining tumor invasion for all tumor categories: T/yT1 — 0 and 69.4% (Pearson, χ² — 67.880, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT2 — 26.1 and 71.1% (Pearson, χ² — 11.666, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT3 — 32.9 and 84.6% (Pearson, χ² — 54.900, df = 1; p < 0.001), T/yT4 — 73.3 and 95.7% (Pearson, χ² — 7.916, df = 1; p = 0.005) respectively. In general, the sensitivity of the computed tomography according to the standard protocol for determining the T-stage of gastric cancer was 28.4%, computed tomographic pneumogastrography — 77.1% (Pearson, χ² — 113.505, df = 1; p < 0.001). Computed tomographic pneumogastrography with the possibility of three-dimensional visualization and virtual gastroscopy significantly increases the indicators of the effectiveness of diagnosing gastric cancer — both early forms (category T1) and with deeper invasion (categories T2–T4), demonstrates high sensitivity in determining T/yT-stages.

Keywords

gastric cancer / early gastric cancer / scanning protocol / computed tomography / computed tomography pneumogastrography / virtual gastroscopy / T-stage / yT-stage

References

[1] Caprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrov GV. The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2018. M.: MNIOI them. P.A. Herzen — branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “National Medical Research Center of Radiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia; 2019. (In Russ.).

[2] Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2018 году. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена — филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2019.

[3] Seevaratnam R, Cardoso R, Mcgregor C, et al. How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer. 2012;15(1):3–18. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-011-0069-6

[4] Seevaratnam R., Cardoso R., Mcgregor C., et al. How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis // Gastric Cancer. 2012. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 3–18. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-011-0069-6

[5] Lee M, Choi D, Park M. Gastric cancer: Imaging and staging with MDCT based on the 7th AJCC guidelines. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37:531–540. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-011-9780-3

[6] Lee M., Choi D., Park M. Gastric cancer: Imaging and staging with MDCT based on the 7th AJCC guidelines // Abdom. Imaging. 2012. Vol. 37. P. 531–540. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-011-9780-3

[7] Yu J-S, Choi SH, Choi WH, et al. Value of nonvisualized primary lesions of gastric cancer on preoperative MDCT. AJR. 2007;189:315–319. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2672

[8] Yu J.-S., Choi S.H., Choi W.H., et al. Value of nonvisualized primary lesions of gastric cancer on preoperative MDCT // AJR. 2007. Vol. 189. P. 315–319. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2672

[9] Kim AY, Kim HJ, Ha HK. Gastric cancer by multidetector row CT: preoperative staging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:465–472. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0273-5

[10] Kim A.Y., Kim H.J., Ha H.K. Gastric cancer by multidetector row CT: preoperative staging // Abdom. Imaging. 2005. Vol. 30. P. 465–472. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0273-5

[11] Almeida MFA, Verza L, Bitencourt AGV, et al. Computed tomography with a stomach protocol and virtual gastroscopy in the staging of gastric cancer: an initial experience. Radiol Bras. 2018;51(4):211–217. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0097

[12] Almeida M.F.A., Verza L., Bitencourt A.G.V., et al. Computed tomography with a stomach protocol and virtual gastroscopy in the staging of gastric cancer: an initial experience // Radiol. Bras. 2018. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 211–217. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0097

[13] Zytoon AA, El-Atfey SIB, Hassanein SA-H. Diagnosis of gastric cancer by MDCT gastrography: diagnostic characteristics and management potential. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2020;51(30). DOI: 10.1186/s43055-020-0148-y

[14] Zytoon A.A., El-Atfey S.I.B., Hassanein S.A.-H. Diagnosis of gastric cancer by MDCT gastrography: diagnostic characteristics and management potential // Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2020. Vol. 51. No. 30. DOI: 10.1186/s43055-020-0148-y

[15] Kim JW, Shin SS, Heo SH, et al. The role of three-dimensional multidetector CT gastrography in the preoperative imaging of stomach cancer: emphasis on detection and localization of the tumor. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(1):80–89. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.80

[16] Kim J.W., Shin S.S., Heo S.H., et al. The role of three-dimensional multidetector CT gastrography in the preoperative imaging of stomach cancer: emphasis on detection and localization of the tumor // Korean J. Radiol. 2015. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 80–89. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.80

[17] Tsurumaru D, Nishimuta Y, Muraki T, et al. CT gastrography “wall-carving technique” of gastric cancer: impact of contrast enhancement based on layer depth. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2019;37:597–604. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-019-00845-z

[18] Tsurumaru D., Nishimuta Y., Muraki T., et al. CT gastrography “wall-carving technique” of gastric cancer: impact of contrast enhancement based on layer depth // Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2019. Vol. 37. P. 597–604. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-019-00845-z

[19] 10. Kim HJ, Kim AY, Oh ST, et al. Gastric cancer staging at multi-detector row CT gastrography: comparison of transverse and volumetric CT scanning. Radiology. 2005;236:879–885. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2363041101

[20] Kim H.J., Kim A.Y., Oh S.T., et al. Gastric cancer staging at multi-detector row CT gastrography: comparison of transverse and volumetric CT scanning // Radiology. 2005. Vol. 236. P. 879–885. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2363041101

[21] Kim AY, Kim HJ, Ha HK. Gastric cancer by multidetector row CT: preoperative staging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:465–472. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0273-5

[22] Kim A.Y., Kim H.J., Ha H.K. Gastric cancer by multidetector row CT: preoperative staging // Abdom. Imaging. 2005. Vol. 30. P. 465–472. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0273-5

[23] Patent RUS No. 2621952 C1 RF, IPC A61B 6/03 (2006.01), A61K 49/04 (2006.01). Method for computed tomographic examination of the stomach. Amelina ID, Mishchenko AV; NN Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. No. 2016112501; declared 04.01.2016; publ. 06.08.2017, Bul. No. 16. (In Russ.).

[24] Патент РФ № 2621952 С1 РФ, МПК А61В 6/03 (2006.01), А61К 49/04 (2006.01). Способ компьютерно-томографического исследования желудка. Амелина И.Д., Мищенко А.В.; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии имени Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава РФ. № 2016112501; заявл. 01.04.2016; опубл. 08.06.2017, Бюл. № 16.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Amelina I.D., Shevkunov L.N., Karachun A.M., Mikhnin A.E., Nesterov D.V.