Next Article in Journal
Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms: From Clinic to Pathology and Prognosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Prognostic Relevance of Preoperative Immune, Inflammatory, and Nutritional Biomarkers in Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma: An Observational Multicentre Study
Previous Article in Journal
State-of-the-Art and Upcoming Innovations in Pancreatic Cancer Care: A Step Forward to Precision Medicine
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pattern of Distribution of Lymph Node Metastases in Individual Stations in Middle and Lower Gastric Carcinoma
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

1
Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
2
Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, AP-HP, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, 92110 Paris, France
3
Department of Digestive Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
4
Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
5
Emergency and Trauma Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally and share first authorship.
These authors contributed equally and share senior authorship.
Cancers 2023, 15(13), 3425; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133425
Submission received: 13 May 2023 / Revised: 18 June 2023 / Accepted: 27 June 2023 / Published: 30 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Staging of Gastroesophageal Cancer)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with advanced gastric cancer has important implications for the management of this disease. For this reason, staging laparoscopy plays an important role in the preoperative diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination in these patients. A review of the current literature was performed in order to summarize the indications, advantages, and future perspectives of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology in the diagnosis and management of advanced gastric cancer.

Abstract

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with gastric cancer is discovered with peritoneal metastases at laparotomy. Despite the continuous improvement in the performance of radiological imaging, the preoperative recognition of such an advanced disease is still challenging during the diagnostic work-up, since the sensitivity of CT scans to peritoneal carcinomatosis is not always adequate. Staging laparoscopy offers the chance to significantly increase the rate of promptly diagnosed peritoneal metastases, thus reducing the number of unnecessary laparotomies and modifying the initial treatment strategy of gastric cancer. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of the current literature regarding the role of staging laparoscopy in the management of gastric cancer. Indications, techniques, accuracy, advantages, and limitations of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology were discussed. Furthermore, a focus on current evidence regarding the application of artificial intelligence and image-guided surgery in staging laparoscopy was included in order to provide a picture of the future perspectives of this technique and its integration with modern tools in the preoperative management of gastric cancer.

1. Introduction

Staging laparoscopy (SL) is a minimally invasive diagnostic procedure used for gastrointestinal and gynecological tumor staging, including advanced gastric cancer (GC). During SL, a thorough exploration of the abdominal cavity is carried out to detect possible occult peritoneal metastases that might have been missed by preoperative imaging.
SL plays a key role in the preoperative assessment of GC, as the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis is considered as distant metastasis by the 8th International Union for Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification, ranking the disease as stage IV [1,2] and shifting the initial therapeutic management from upfront surgery toward systemic treatment.
Notwithstanding this, the importance of SL has long been debated since 1984.
On the one hand, Shandall et al. questioned the value of laparoscopy, given the need for at least palliative surgery in a high percentage of patients [3]. Conversely, other authors, such as Gross et al., already recognized its role in identifying metastatic disease while carrying negligible morbidity, and thus avoiding unnecessary laparotomies [4,5].
Nowadays, the employment of new chemotherapy regimens, the technological improvement in diagnostics and surgery, and the multi-disciplinary decision making have expanded the boundaries of advanced GC treatment, paving the way to patient-tailored strategies and improving overall and disease-free survival [6,7,8,9].
However, despite computed tomography (CT) currently representing the gold standard technique for preoperative GC staging, its performance in detecting peritoneal dissemination is suboptimal and often relies on many indirect signs of carcinomatosis, such as ascites and omental retraction [10].
SL can provide supplementary information regarding GC peritoneal dissemination, also through peritoneal washing and cytological analysis [11].
For this reason, SL is recommended for preoperative staging of GC by several international guidelines, including those published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [12], European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) [13,14], Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) [15], and the Japanese and Italian guidelines [16].
This review aims to provide an overview of SL for GC, its indications, benefits, limitations, and future perspectives.
A literature search was performed by screening MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception to 1st April 2023. Specific research equations were designed for each database, using the following search equation: ((staging laparoscopy) OR (diagnostic laparoscopy)) AND (gastric cancer). After a first screening based on titles and abstracts, thirty-seven articles were selected and underwent full-text analysis. Relevant articles were reviewed, and their references were also screened for additional relevant studies. Only English-language articles were included.

2. Indications for Staging Laparoscopy (SL)

The most important aim of SL is to detect occult peritoneal disease through direct intraperitoneal view or cytological analysis after peritoneal washing, which cannot be preoperatively diagnosed by conventional radiological imaging [17].
The most important indications for SL according to National and International Guidelines are summarized in Table 1.
In Western countries, where the ratio of advanced–early GC is more common, there is a general indication for SL in the case of a resectable GC without distant metastases. In particular, according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for GC [12], SL may be employed for the detection of radiographically occult metastases in patients considered for surgical resection without preoperative therapy when T3 and/or N+ GC has been diagnosed at preoperative imaging. Moreover, the panel recommends SL and cytology of peritoneal washings in medically fit patients with potentially resectable stage cT1b or higher locoregional disease when surgery and/or preoperative chemoradiation are considered. Finally, SL with cytology can be considered for medically fit patients with unresectable diseases [19].
As regards European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines [14], SL with peritoneal washings for malignant cells is recommended in all potentially resectable stage IB-III GC to exclude occult peritoneal metastases disease for patients who are also candidates for perioperative chemotherapy [III, B]. The panel recommends classifying peritoneal carcinomatosis according to the Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) [20,21].
According to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines [15], SL is indicated for patients with cT3–4 N0 M0 GC. Additionally, the authors also suggested several contraindications, as follows: obstructive, hemorrhagic, or perforated GC needing palliative surgery; early-stage GC (T1–2); patient history of abdominal surgery due to the presence of adhesions that may preclude the procedure.
In Eastern countries, SL is carried out based on the results of two clinical trials of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG), in which SL was systematically performed to confirm the eligibility criteria [22,23]. According to the 6th edition of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines [16], SL is weakly recommended to establish the therapeutic strategy for patients with advanced GC with a high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Several studies investigating clinical, radiological, and pathological features associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis or cytology identified linitis plastica, Bormann type 3–4, poor histological poor differentiation, and suspected lymphadenopathy at CT scan as risk factors at multivariate analysis [24,25,26,27,28,29].

3. Technique of Staging Laparoscopy with Peritoneal Cytology (PC)

SL is performed under general anesthesia with the patient in a supine position. To begin the procedure, open Hasson, or optical ports-based technique, as well as Veress needle insufflation, can be used according to the surgeon’s personal experience. After the carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum induction, the inspection of the peritoneal cavity through a laparoscope can start, looking for any signs of advanced or metastatic GC disease. Ascitic fluid is collected for cytology if present. The liver, spleen, diaphragm, mesentery, and peritoneal surfaces are examined for the presence of metastatic disease (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). In case of no sign of distant GC extension, the left lateral lobe of the liver is elevated to expose the entire stomach. The gastric tumor is then carefully examined for any invasion beyond the serosal layer or infiltration of the nearby anatomical structures. If the tumor involves the posterior gastric wall, the exploration of the lesser sac may be needed to improve SL accuracy.
Although the SL technique has been long described in the literature, a standardized “Four-Step Procedure” has not been proposed until 2018 by Liu et al. [30].
The first step regards the exploration of the anterior abdominal wall and the surface of the visceral peritoneum. Specifically, the exploration of the anterior abdominal wall is performed with a circular clockwise orientation, starting from the diaphragmatic domes, the teres, and falciform ligaments, then proceeding towards the left side, the hypogastric, and the right side of the anterior abdominal wall. Conversely, the exploration of the surface of the abdominal viscera is performed according to an “S-shaped” sequence, starting from the anterosuperior surface of the left and right liver, proceeding to the greater omentum and the transverse colon, then to the left colon and the left paracolic gutter, finally ending with the surface of the small intestine, the right colon, and the right paracolic gutter.
The second step aims to explore the pelvic parietal and visceral peritoneum. This step takes advantage of a 30° Trendelenburg position and requires the placement of two 5 mm trocars in order to take the intestine out of the pelvis. At this point, the bilateral iliac fossa (and the annexes for female patients) are exposed, and the pelvic floor and the peritoneal reflection can be examined after lifting the bladder fundus (or uterus in females) and pulling the sigmoid colon.
The third step concerns the inspection of the small intestine and mesentery. The 30° Reverse Trendelenburg or supine position is required. The greater omentum and the transverse colon are lifted up, and the transverse mesocolon, the Treitz ligament, and the duodenojejunal junction are examined. Subsequently, the whole surface of the intestinal mesentery, together with the surface of the small intestine, are explored from the Treitz region to the ileocecal valve.
The fourth step regards the exploration of the stomach and the adjacent area. In the supine position, the greater omentum is replaced in its anatomical position to expose the anterior gastric surface and the greater curvature. Next, the stomach is lifted in order to evaluate the presence of posterior neoplastic infiltration. Then, the exploration of the lesser curvature and lesser omentum may require the lifting of the left liver. In the case of proximal GC, the distance between the tumor and cardia should be evaluated, while pylorus and duodenal bulb infiltration should be examined in the case of distal GC.
Finally, after the exploration of the hepatorenal recess, the opening of the gastrocolic ligament and the inspection of the lesser sac should be considered for posterior GC.
During the procedure, biopsies are performed when peritoneal dissemination is detected.
PC represents a useful diagnostic tool for detecting GC spreading to the peritoneal cavity. In order to obtain samples for cytologic analysis, a peritoneal lavage is performed through the infusion of 150 mL of saline solution into hepatorenal and splenic recesses during the first step, and the infusion of 200 mL into paracolic gutters and the pelvis during the second step.
Being a surgical procedure in every aspect, SL can be burdened by the same complications of other surgeries. Except for the anesthesiologic complications that may occur due to comorbidities and/or intolerance of the pneumoperitoneum, the perioperative course can still be complicated by inadvertent bowel perforation during manipulation, damage to other intra-abdominal structures, hemorrhage (especially after biopsy), infection, and incisional hernia. Nevertheless, the incidence of these complications is quite rare, and SL can be considered a safe procedure.

4. Performance and Clinical Significance of SL with PC

SL can detect unknown metastatic diseases in up to three out of five GC patients despite negative staging imaging [4,31,32,33,34,35]. The accuracy of SL for GC varies according to patients’ characteristics, surgeon’s experience, and disease extent. In 2006, Sarela et al. analyzed the efficacy of SL in 657 patients with potentially resectable GC over a 10-year period, highlighting a 31% rate of metastatic disease [36]. A meta-analysis of five studies with a total of 240 patients showed an overall sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI: 0.747, 0.918) and an overall specificity of 100% (95% CI: 0.977, 1.00) of SL for detecting GC peritoneal metastasis [11]. Similarly, a systematic review by Leake et al. showed an overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of SL for M staging ranging from 85 to 98.9%, 64.3 to 94%, and 80 to 100%, respectively [37]. Furthermore, SL changed the therapeutic indication and treatment in 8.5–59.6% of GC patients, avoiding unnecessary laparotomies in 8.5–43.8% of cases. A study by Gertsen et al. [38] has recently evaluated the performance of SL in a multicenter cohort of 394 GC patients. The authors reported higher accuracy for advanced cT3–T4 and diffuse-type GC with an overall sensitivity of 82% (95% CI, 70–91%) and a specificity of 78% (95% CI, 73–83%). Nevertheless, its limited usefulness for the evaluation of parenchymal organ lesions, such as non-superficial liver metastases and lymph node dissemination, represents one of the main limitations of SL.
Nowadays, the importance of SL is also enhanced by the possibility of assessing the Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) [20]. PCI is a numerical scoring system specifically designed to assess the burden of peritoneal dissemination in patients with tumors with peritoneal metastasis, including advanced gastric cancer. It provides a detailed assessment of the severity and distribution of tumor spreading within the peritoneal cavity, playing an important role in both staging and treatment planning. PCI is calculated by dividing the abdominal cavity into 13 areas based on specific anatomical landmarks. Once the tumor deposits are identified, the surgeon assigns a score of 0 to 3 for each area, depending on the size and extent of macroscopic tumor involvement. Specifically, a score of 0 represents the absence of visible tumor implants, while a score of 1 indicates the presence of small tumor nodules measuring less than 5 mm. A score of 2 is assigned when macroscopical nodules ranging from 5 mm to 5 cm are identified, while a score of 3 indicates the presence of nodules larger than 5 cm or of extensive tumor confluence. The total PCI score, thus, can range from 0 to 39. It provides a comprehensive overview of the peritoneal dissemination burden, correlating directly with patient overall survival and prognosis [39,40]. Furthermore, PCI is employed as a valuable tool in treatment decision-making. Patients with higher PCI are considered for systemic chemotherapy and/or palliative measures in order to improve their quality of life and manage symptoms. On the other hand, patients with lower PCI may be candidates for aggressive surgery aiming to remove all the macroscopic peritoneal metastasis, followed by the administration of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which has the goal of clearing the residual microscopic deposits.
Indeed, during recent decades, cytoreductive surgery followed by HIPEC [41,42,43], as well as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) [44,45,46], has emerged as novel therapeutic options for patients with advanced GC with PC [47,48]. Despite the PCI cut-off of 12 proposed by Glehen et al. in 2012 [49,50,51], the current literature recommends a PCI lower than 7 to achieve a complete cytoreduction [52,53]. Based on the available data, the NCCN Panel recommends HIPEC or laparoscopic HIPEC as a therapeutic alternative for carefully selected stage IV patients in the setting of ongoing clinical trials only [12].
PC can further improve the efficacy of SL for GC staging through the identification of occult carcinomatosis [54]. Indeed, positive PC is associated with an independent prognostic factor for poor prognosis and recurrence following curative gastric resection [55,56,57,58]. A systematic review of the accuracy of peritoneal washing in GC patients revealed a disease recurrence rate of 11.1–100% and 0–51% in the case of positive and negative PC, respectively [59]. On the other hand, staging laparoscopy with PC plays a pivotal role also in gastric cancer re-staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In a study by Mezhir et al., the authors found positive cytology in 291 out of a total of 1241 patients with gastric cancer who underwent staging laparoscopy with peritoneal washing from January 1993 to April 2009. Of these, a total of 48 patients with positive cytology underwent re-staging laparoscopy after the administration of systemic chemotherapy. The authors found a significantly improved disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with a cleared cytology-positive GC after chemotherapy, as compared to patients who had persistently positive cytology (2.5 years vs. 1.4 years, p = 0.0003) [56]. Nevertheless, the role of radical gastrectomy for GC with positive PC remains unclear, as positive PC upgrades the stage disease to level IV, even in the absence of macroscopic PC.
Staging laparoscopy has some limitations that must be considered. It is an invasive procedure that carries a risk of complications, such as bleeding, infection, and injury to surrounding organs, albeit lower than the morbidity and mortality associated with nontherapeutic laparotomies [60,61]. Moreover, the accuracy of SL is still related to the surgeon’s expertise, and false-negative results can also occur due to the presence of micrometastases or the inability to biopsy all suspicious lesions [11,24,62,63].

5. Will There Still Be Room for SL in the Era of Artificial Intelligence?

SL has become part of the standard preoperative assessment of GC staging during recent decades. However, the continuous technological progress of CT imaging in terms of accuracy and precision [64] and the rise of new technologies, namely artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics [65], are questioning the indications of SL for patients with advanced GC. Nowadays, CT is widely recommended for preoperative and post-treatment GC staging, having an accuracy ranging from 77.8% to 93.5% for T staging [66,67,68] and from 50% to 70% for N staging [69]. FDG-PET has a lower accuracy rate in preoperative staging of gastric cancer, due to low FDG uptake in diffuse and mucinous tumor types, which are common in this disease [70,71]. Compared to CT-scan, FDG-PET has lower sensitivity but higher specificity in the detection of lymph node involvement (56% vs. 78%, 92% vs. 62%, respectively) [72]. Recently, Borggreve et al. [73] reported that, while rarely employed for the diagnosis of peritoneal metastasis, IRM demonstrated the best diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity as compared with other imaging modalities. In particular, the authors found that accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for the detection of peritoneal dissemination of DWI-IRM and PET-CT were 83%, 84%, and 82% and 80%, 84%, and 73%, respectively [73]. In recent decades, the employment of MRI for GC staging has aroused interest due to its ability to provide greater tissue contrast resolution associated with the absence of ionizing radiation [74,75,76]. Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluated the advantages of MRI in the preoperative staging of GC, highlighting the accuracy of MRI for T and N stages [77,78]. In 2012, Seevaratnam et al. reported an MRI overall accuracy of 82.9% and 85.3% for T and N staging, respectively [77]. Thereafter, in 2015, the subgroup analysis by Huang et al., only considering T3 and T4 GC, showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI of 93% and 91%, respectively [78]. Nevertheless, a more recent systematic review published by Laghi et al. in 2017 analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI for peritoneal metastases in a cohort of 630 patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. MRI showed higher specificity (86% vs. 83%) and sensitivity (88% vs. 86%) for the detection of PC when compared to CT scans, despite not reaching statistical significance [79]. Although CT still represents the prevalent non-invasive method to detect peritoneal carcinomatosis, its sensitivity in the case of occult peritoneal metastasis is significantly reduced [10]. Indeed, the evidence of peritoneal metastasis during SL or surgery missed by CT represents a current challenge, especially considering that curative R0 surgery is not indicated for stage IV GC [12,13].
A prospective study by Li et al. [80] analyzed the reliability of a 4-point CT score system based on the radiological characteristics of suspected peritoneal metastases. Specifically, the authors prospectively validated the 4-point CT score through a region-to-region comparison of the detection of occult peritoneal metastases between SL and preoperative CT in a cohort of 385 patients (as regards free peritoneum: 0—no abnormal sign; 1 (mild)—slightly and homogeneously increased fat density; 2 (moderate)—heterogeneously increased density; and 3 (severe)—heterogeneously and obviously increased density, multiple strands, curl sign, or blurred-margined small nodules; as regards visceral peritoneum: 0—no lines displayed; 1—slightly thickened line; 2—obviously thickened line with enhancement; and 3—obviously thickened line with enhancement and tiny nodules or a small number of ascites). This scoring system has shown a specificity of 76.45 and a sensitivity of 87.5% for the diagnosis of occult peritoneal metastases. Furthermore, only a 2% false-negative rate was associated with a CT score lower than 2, probably suggesting that SL might be avoided for patients with a score below the aforementioned threshold.
More recently, AI has been broadly investigated as a complementary tool due to its potential to overcome many limitations of SL and computed tomography for GC in terms of accuracy and safety [81,82]. The prediction of T stage [83,84,85,86,87,88] and lymph node status [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] in GC patients through AI-based models have been deeply investigated in the literature. In addition, AI can be employed in assisting decision making by predicting the risk of peritoneal metastasis and identifying the optimal treatment strategy based on patient-specific characteristics.
Dong et al. [95] improved a radiomic nomogram, based on the association of Lauren type with 266 imaging phenotypes of the primary GC and the adjacent peritoneum, for the identification of occult peritoneal metastasis revealing an area under curve of 0.920 (95% CI 0.862–0.978) in two external validation cohorts. Huang et al. developed a convolutional neural network model able to detect occult peritoneal metastasis in 544 patients, showing a sensitivity of 81%, a specificity of 87.5%, and an area under curve of 0.90 [96].
Recently, Jiang et al. [97] analyzed the use of a deep learning model to predict occult peritoneal metastases, based on preoperative computed tomography images, in a cohort of 1978 patients. The authors implemented a prediction model based on a densely connected convolutional network combined with long-short connections, able to process a 10-cm2 CT image of the primary tumor to estimate the probability of occult peritoneal metastasis. The Peritoneal Metastasis Network model achieved an area under the curve of 0.92 with a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 98.2% in the external validation cohort. Moreover, this non-invasive model was an independent predictor of occult peritoneal metastases at the multivariable analysis, with better performance when compared to the conventional clinicopathological factors.
Interestingly, Schnelldorfer et al. [62] tried to identify some optical features differentiating benign from malignant peritoneal lesions of gastrointestinal origin. Two images of each peritoneal lesion, which was biopsied during SL, were analyzed through an expert survey of 10 surgeons, the optical appearance of 3 experienced investigators, digital image processing, and machine learning. There was a 36 ± 19% rate of metastases misidentification in the expert survey and machine learning using a neural network, resulting in an unacceptable clinical efficacy (area under curve of only 0.47).
In conclusion, AI may have the potential to revolutionize the staging of GC and redesign the role of SL. Furthermore, the development of image-guided surgical tools might integrate the AI application. In fact, while they have already been investigated to guide lymphadenectomy during resective surgery [98], the use of tools such as fluorescence could also help to detect microscopic peritoneal metastasis, similar to what has already been reported for ovarian cancer [99]. However, the evidence in the current literature is still anecdotal, and AI has not yet been employed in routine clinical practice on large datasets. For these reasons, SL will likely continue to play a pivotal role in the management and preoperative assessment of GC in the near future.

6. Conclusions

SL is a key tool for preoperative GC staging, allowing an accurate assessment of disease extent and the detection of peritoneal metastases that may be missed by conventional preoperative imaging.
The high sensitivity and specificity of SL, together with its negligible rate of complications, earned it a top-notch spot in GC clinical decision making, thanks to the possibility of preventing unnecessary laparotomy in case of metastatic disease and identifying all patients with advanced disease who will not benefit from curative surgery.
The integration of new technologies into current clinical practice, such as AI-based models, has the potential to improve the accuracy of preoperative staging tools and might provide a more accurate patient selection for tailored treatment strategies.

Author Contributions

Conception of the work: F.R., C.A.S. and V.L. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: D.D.S., G.Q., C.F., G.G., A.S. and N.d. Draft of the work: C.A.S. and V.L. Revision for important intellectual content: V.T. and S.A. All authors approved the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amin, M.B.; Greene, F.L.; Edge, S.B.; Compton, C.C.; Gershenwald, J.E.; Brookland, R.K.; Meyer, L.; Gress, D.M.; Byrd, D.R.; Winchester, D.P. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2017, 67, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Marano, L.; D’Ignazio, A.; Cammillini, F.; Angotti, R.; Messina, M.; Marrelli, D.; Roviello, F. Comparison between 7th and 8th edition of AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: Old problems and new perspectives. Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shandall, A.; Johnson, C. Laparoscopy or scanning in oesophageal and gastric carcinoma? Br. J. Surg. 1985, 72, 449–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gross, E.; Bancewicz, J.; Ingram, G. Assessment of gastric cancer by laparoscopy. Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.) 1984, 288, 1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Groh, E.M.; Gupta, S.; Brown, Z.J.; Enewold, L.; Gamble, L.A.; Hernandez, J.M.; Davis, J.L. Staging Laparoscopy is Underutilized in the Management of Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 27, 1473–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rosa, F.; Schena, C.A.; Laterza, V.; Quero, G.; Fiorillo, C.; Strippoli, A.; Pozzo, C.; Papa, V.; Alfieri, S. The Role of Surgery in the Management of Gastric Cancer: State of the Art. Cancers 2022, 14, 5542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Salati, M.; Di Emidio, K.; Tarantino, V.; Cascinu, S. Second-line treatments: Moving towards an opportunity to improve survival in advanced gastric cancer? ESMO Open 2017, 2, e000206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Coutzac, C.; Pernot, S.; Chaput, N.; Zaanan, A. Immunotherapy in advanced gastric cancer, is it the future? Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2019, 133, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rosa, F.; Alfieri, S.; Tortorelli, A.P.; Fiorillo, C.; Costamagna, G.; Doglietto, G.B. Trends in clinical features, postoperative outcomes, and long-term survival for gastric cancer: A Western experience with 1,278 patients over 30 years. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 12, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Burbidge, S.; Mahady, K.; Naik, K. The role of CT and staging laparoscopy in the staging of gastric cancer. Clin. Radiol. 2013, 68, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ramos, R.F.; Scalon, F.M.; Scalon, M.M.; Dias, D.I. Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer to detect peritoneal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 42, 1315–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ajani, J.A.; D’Amico, T.A.; Bentrem, D.J.; Chao, J.; Cooke, D.; Corvera, C.; Das, P.; Enzinger, P.C.; Enzler, T.; Fanta, P.; et al. Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2022, 20, 167–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Smyth, E.C.; Verheij, M.; Allum, W.; Cunningham, D.; Cervantes, A.; Arnold, D.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, v38–v49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lordick, F.; Carneiro, F.; Cascinu, S.; Fleitas, T.; Haustermans, K.; Piessen, G.; Vogel, A.; Smyth, E.C.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2022, 33, 1005–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. SAGES. Guidelines for Diagnostic Laparoscopy. Reviewed and Approved in April 2010. Available online: https://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-diagnostic-laparoscopy/ (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  16. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2021, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Coburn, N.; Cosby, R.; Klein, L.; Knight, G.; Malthaner, R.; Mamazza, J.; Mercer, C.D.; Ringash, J. Staging and surgical approaches in gastric cancer: A clinical practice guideline. Curr. Oncol. 2017, 24, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. De Manzoni, G.; Marrelli, D.; Baiocchi, G.L.; Morgagni, P.; Saragoni, L.; Degiuli, M.; Donini, A.; Fumagalli, U.; Mazzei, M.A.; Pacelli, F.; et al. The Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) guidelines for gastric cancer staging and treatment: 2015. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Al-Batran, S.E.; Hartmann, J.T.; Probst, S.; Schmalenberg, H.; Hollerbach, S.; Hofheinz, R.; Rethwisch, V.; Seipelt, G.; Homann, N.; Wilhelm, G.; et al. Phase III trial in metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma with fluorouracil, leucovorin plus either oxaliplatin or cisplatin: A study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 1435–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harmon, R.L.; Sugarbaker, P.H. Prognostic indicators in peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal cancer. Int. Semin. Surg. Oncol. 2005, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sugarbaker, P.H. Management of peritoneal-surface malignancy: The surgeon’s role. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 1999, 384, 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Terashima, M.; Iwasaki, Y.; Mizusawa, J.; Katayama, H.; Nakamura, K.; Katai, H.; Yoshikawa, T.; Ito, Y.; Kaji, M.; Kimura, Y.; et al. Randomized phase III trial of gastrectomy with or without neoadjuvant S-1 plus cisplatin for type 4 or large type 3 gastric cancer, the short-term safety and surgical results: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG0501). Gastric Cancer 2019, 22, 1044–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Tsuburaya, A.; Mizusawa, J.; Tanaka, Y.; Fukushima, N.; Nashimoto, A.; Sasako, M.; Stomach Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 and cisplatin followed by D2 gastrectomy with para-aortic lymph node dissection for gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 653–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ikoma, N.; Blum, M.; Chiang, Y.J.; Estrella, J.S.; Roy-Chowdhuri, S.; Fournier, K.; Mansfield, P.; Ajani, J.A.; Badgwell, B.D. Yield of Staging Laparoscopy and Lavage Cytology for Radiologically Occult Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Gastric Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 4332–4337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Solaini, L.; Bencivenga, M.; D’Ignazio, A.; Milone, M.; Marino, E.; De Pascale, S.; Rosa, F.; Sacco, M.; Fumagalli Romario, U.; Graziosi, L.; et al. Which gastric cancer patients could benefit from staging laparoscopy? A GIRCG multicenter cohort study. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 48, 1778–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tsuchida, K.; Yoshikawa, T.; Tsuburaya, A.; Cho, H.; Kobayashi, O. Indications for staging laparoscopy in clinical T4M0 gastric cancer. World J. Surg. 2011, 35, 2703–2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fukagawa, T. Role of staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer patients. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2019, 3, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, Y.F.; Deng, Z.W.; Liu, H.; Mou, T.Y.; Chen, T.; Lu, X.; Wang, D.; Yu, J.; Li, G.X. Staging laparoscopy improves treatment decision-making for advanced gastric cancer. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 1859–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Irino, T.; Sano, T.; Hiki, N.; Ohashi, M.; Nunobe, S.; Kumagai, K.; Ida, S.; Yamaguchi, T. Diagnostic staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer: A prospective cohort at a cancer institute in Japan. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, K.; Chen, X.Z.; Zhang, W.H.; Zhang, D.Y.; Luo, Y.; Yu, Y.; Yang, K.; Yang, S.J.; Chen, X.L.; Sun, L.F.; et al. “Four-Step Procedure” of laparoscopic exploration for gastric cancer in West China Hospital: A retrospective observational analysis from a high-volume institution in China. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 33, 1674–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Possik, R.A.; Franco, E.L.; Pires, D.R.; Wohnrath, D.R.; Ferreira, E.B. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of laparoscopy for the staging of gastric cancer and for the detection of liver metastases. Cancer 1986, 58, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kriplani, A.K.; Kapur, B.M. Laparoscopy for pre-operative staging and assessment of operability in gastric carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991, 37, 441–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lowy, A.M.; Mansfield, P.F.; Leach, S.D.; Ajani, J. Laparoscopic staging for gastric cancer. Surgery 1996, 119, 611–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. D’Ugo, D.; Persiani, R.; Pende, V. Impact of diagnostic laparoscopy on the management of gastric cancer: Prospective study of 120 consecutive patients with primary gastric adenocarcinoma (Br J Surg 2002; 89: 471-5). Br. J. Surg. 2002, 89, 1325–1326, author reply 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Burke, E.C.; Karpeh, M.S.; Conlon, K.C.; Brennan, M.F. Laparoscopy in the management of gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. 1997, 225, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sarela, A.I.; Lefkowitz, R.; Brennan, M.F.; Karpeh, M.S. Selection of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma for laparoscopic staging. Am. J. Surg. 2006, 191, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leake, P.A.; Cardoso, R.; Seevaratnam, R.; Lourenco, L.; Helyer, L.; Mahar, A.; Law, C.; Coburn, N.G. A systematic review of the accuracy and indications for diagnostic laparoscopy prior to curative-intent resection of gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2012, 15 (Suppl. S1), S38–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Gertsen, E.C.; Brenkman, H.J.F.; van Hillegersberg, R.; van Sandick, J.W.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Luyer, M.D.P.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; van Lanschot, J.J.B.; Lagarde, S.M.; et al. 18F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC). JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, e215340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jacquet, P.; Sugarbaker, P.H. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat. Res. 1996, 82, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Portilla, A.G.; Shigeki, K.; Dario, B.; Marcello, D. The intraoperative staging systems in the management of peritoneal surface malignancy. J. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 98, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bonnot, P.E.; Piessen, G.; Kepenekian, V.; Decullier, E.; Pocard, M.; Meunier, B.; Bereder, J.M.; Abboud, K.; Marchal, F.; Quenet, F.; et al. Cytoreductive Surgery with or without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases (CYTO-CHIP study): A Propensity Score Analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 2028–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Badgwell, B.; Ikoma, N.; Murphy, M.B.; Wang, X.; Estrella, J.; Roy-Chowdhuri, S.; Das, P.; Minsky, B.D.; Lano, E.; Song, S.; et al. A Phase II Trial of Cytoreduction, Gastrectomy, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Perfusion with Chemotherapy for Patients with Gastric Cancer and Carcinomatosis or Positive Cytology. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Yang, X.J.; Huang, C.Q.; Suo, T.; Mei, L.J.; Yang, G.L.; Cheng, F.L.; Zhou, Y.F.; Xiong, B.; Yonemura, Y.; Li, Y. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer: Final results of a phase III randomized clinical trial. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 18, 1575–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Alyami, M.; Bonnot, P.E.; Mercier, F.; Laplace, N.; Villeneuve, L.; Passot, G.; Bakrin, N.; Kepenekian, V.; Glehen, O. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for unresectable peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 47, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Di Giorgio, A.; Schena, C.A.; El Halabieh, M.A.; Abatini, C.; Vita, E.; Strippoli, A.; Inzani, F.; Rodolfino, E.; Romano, B.; Pacelli, F.; et al. Systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): A bidirectional approach for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 34, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eveno, C.; Jouvin, I.; Pocard, M. PIPAC EstoK 01: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in gastric peritoneal metastasis: A randomized and multicenter phase II study. Pleura Peritoneum 2018, 3, 20180116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Manzanedo, I.; Pereira, F.; Perez-Viejo, E.; Serrano, A. Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: Current Status and Prospects for Treatment. Cancers 2023, 15, 1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marano, L.; Marrelli, D.; Sammartino, P.; Biacchi, D.; Graziosi, L.; Marino, E.; Coccolini, F.; Fugazzola, P.; Valle, M.; Federici, O.; et al. Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer with Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases: Multicenter Study of ‘Italian Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Oncoteam-S.I.C.O.’. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 9060–9070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Glehen, O.; Gilly, F.N.; Arvieux, C.; Cotte, E.; Boutitie, F.; Mansvelt, B.; Bereder, J.M.; Lorimier, G.; Quenet, F.; Elias, D.; et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer: A multi-institutional study of 159 patients treated by cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 2370–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Gilly, F.N.; Cotte, E.; Brigand, C.; Monneuse, O.; Beaujard, A.C.; Freyer, G.; Glehen, O. Quantitative prognostic indices in peritoneal carcinomatosis. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2006, 32, 597–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chia, C.S.; You, B.; Decullier, E.; Vaudoyer, D.; Lorimier, G.; Abboud, K.; Bereder, J.M.; Arvieux, C.; Boschetti, G.; Glehen, O.; et al. Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Gastric Cancer Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: Is Cure a Possibility? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 1971–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Manzanedo, I.; Pereira, F.; Rihuete Caro, C.; Perez-Viejo, E.; Serrano, A.; Gutierrez Calvo, A.; Regueira, F.M.; Casado-Adam, A.; Cascales-Campos, P.A.; Arteaga, X.; et al. Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Multicenter Study of Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP). Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 2615–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rau, B.; Brandl, A.; Piso, P.; Pelz, J.; Busch, P.; Demtroder, C.; Schule, S.; Schlitt, H.J.; Roitman, M.; Tepel, J.; et al. Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer: Results from the German database. Gastric Cancer 2020, 23, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Abdalla, E.K.; Pisters, P.W. Staging and preoperative evaluation of upper gastrointestinal malignancies. Semin. Oncol. 2004, 31, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bentrem, D.; Wilton, A.; Mazumdar, M.; Brennan, M.; Coit, D. The value of peritoneal cytology as a preoperative predictor in patients with gastric carcinoma undergoing a curative resection. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2005, 12, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mezhir, J.J.; Shah, M.A.; Jacks, L.M.; Brennan, M.F.; Coit, D.G.; Strong, V.E. Positive peritoneal cytology in patients with gastric cancer: Natural history and outcome of 291 patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 3173–3180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Andrade, J.P.; Mezhir, J.J. The critical role of peritoneal cytology in the staging of gastric cancer: An evidence-based review. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 110, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ciesla, S.; Lisiecki, R.; Lawnicka, A.; Kudlinski, B.; Ostrowska, P.; Davi, A.; Veroux, M.; Murawa, D. Clinical Significance of Peritoneal Fluid Examination for Free Cancer Cells in Patients Qualified for Surgery for Gastric Cancer. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 685868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Leake, P.A.; Cardoso, R.; Seevaratnam, R.; Lourenco, L.; Helyer, L.; Mahar, A.; Rowsell, C.; Coburn, N.G. A systematic review of the accuracy and utility of peritoneal cytology in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2012, 15 (Suppl. S1), S27–S37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Karanicolas, P.J.; Elkin, E.B.; Jacks, L.M.; Atoria, C.L.; Strong, V.E.; Brennan, M.F.; Coit, D.G. Staging laparoscopy in the management of gastric cancer: A population-based analysis. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2011, 213, 644–651, 651 e641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Muntean, V.; Mihailov, A.; Iancu, C.; Toganel, R.; Fabian, O.; Domsa, I.; Muntean, M.V. Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer. Accuracy and impact on therapy. J. Gastrointest. Liver Dis. 2009, 18, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schnelldorfer, T.; Ware, M.P.; Liu, L.P.; Sarr, M.G.; Birkett, D.H.; Ruthazer, R. Can We Accurately Identify Peritoneal Metastases Based on Their Appearance? An Assessment of the Current Practice of Intraoperative Gastrointestinal Cancer Staging. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 1795–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ribeiro, U., Jr.; Gama-Rodrigues, J.J.; Safatle-Ribeiro, A.V.; Bitelman, B.; Ibrahim, R.E.; Ferreira, M.B.; Laudanna, A.A.; Pinotti, H.W. Prognostic significance of intraperitoneal free cancer cells obtained by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in patients with gastric cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 1998, 2, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Nicolaou, S.; Mohammed, M.F. Multienergy Computed Tomography: A New Horizon in Computed Tomographic Imaging. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 56, xv–xvi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Volpe, S.; Mastroleo, F.; Krengli, M.; Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Quo vadis Radiomics? Bibliometric analysis of 10-year Radiomics journey. Eur. Radiol. 2023, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kim, J.W.; Shin, S.S.; Heo, S.H.; Choi, Y.D.; Lim, H.S.; Park, Y.K.; Park, C.H.; Jeong, Y.Y.; Kang, H.K. Diagnostic performance of 64-section CT using CT gastrography in preoperative T staging of gastric cancer according to 7th edition of AJCC cancer staging manual. Eur. Radiol. 2012, 22, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Makino, T.; Fujiwara, Y.; Takiguchi, S.; Tsuboyama, T.; Kim, T.; Nushijima, Y.; Yamasaki, M.; Miyata, H.; Nakajima, K.; Mori, M.; et al. Preoperative T staging of gastric cancer by multi-detector row computed tomography. Surgery 2011, 149, 672–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ba-Ssalamah, A.; Prokop, M.; Uffmann, M.; Pokieser, P.; Teleky, B.; Lechner, G. Dedicated multidetector CT of the stomach: Spectrum of diseases. Radiographics 2003, 23, 625–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kim, H.J.; Kim, A.Y.; Oh, S.T.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, K.W.; Kim, P.N.; Lee, M.G.; Ha, H.K. Gastric cancer staging at multi-detector row CT gastrography: Comparison of transverse and volumetric CT scanning. Radiology 2005, 236, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thuss-Patience, P.C.; Kretzschmar, A.; Bichev, D.; Deist, T.; Hinke, A.; Breithaupt, K.; Dogan, Y.; Gebauer, B.; Schumacher, G.; Reichardt, P. Survival advantage for irinotecan versus best supportive care as second-line chemotherapy in gastric cancer--a randomised phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO). Eur. J. Cancer 2011, 47, 2306–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kang, J.H.; Lee, S.I.; Lim, D.H.; Park, K.W.; Oh, S.Y.; Kwon, H.C.; Hwang, I.G.; Lee, S.C.; Nam, E.; Shin, D.B.; et al. Salvage chemotherapy for pretreated gastric cancer: A randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care alone. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 1513–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Ford, H.E.; Marshall, A.; Bridgewater, J.A.; Janowitz, T.; Coxon, F.Y.; Wadsley, J.; Mansoor, W.; Fyfe, D.; Madhusudan, S.; Middleton, G.W.; et al. Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): An open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Borggreve, A.S.; Goense, L.; Brenkman, H.J.F.; Mook, S.; Meijer, G.J.; Wessels, F.J.; Verheij, M.; Jansen, E.P.M.; van Hillegersberg, R.; van Rossum, P.S.N.; et al. Imaging strategies in the management of gastric cancer: Current role and future potential of MRI. Br. J. Radiol. 2019, 92, 20181044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Renzulli, M.; Clemente, A.; Spinelli, D.; Ierardi, A.M.; Marasco, G.; Farina, D.; Brocchi, S.; Ravaioli, M.; Pettinari, I.; Cescon, M.; et al. Gastric Cancer Staging: Is It Time for Magnetic Resonance Imaging? Cancers 2020, 12, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chung, J.J.; Semelka, R.C.; Martin, D.R.; Marcos, H.B. Colon diseases: MR evaluation using combined T2-weighted single-shot echo train spin-echo and gadolinium-enhanced spoiled gradient-echo sequences. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000, 12, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Guo, H.L.; He, L.; Zhu, Y.C.; Wu, K.; Yuan, F. Comparison between multi-slice spiral CT and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of peritoneal metastasis in primary ovarian carcinoma. OncoTargets Ther. 2018, 11, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Seevaratnam, R.; Cardoso, R.; McGregor, C.; Lourenco, L.; Mahar, A.; Sutradhar, R.; Law, C.; Paszat, L.; Coburn, N. How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer 2012, 15 (Suppl. S1), S3–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Huang, Z.; Xie, D.H.; Guo, L.; Hu, C.H.; Fang, X.; Meng, Q.; Ping, X.X.; Lu, Z.W. The utility of MRI for pre-operative T and N staging of gastric carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Radiol. 2015, 88, 20140552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Laghi, A.; Bellini, D.; Rengo, M.; Accarpio, F.; Caruso, D.; Biacchi, D.; Di Giorgio, A.; Sammartino, P. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting peritoneal metastases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol. Med. 2017, 122, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, Z.Y.; Tang, L.; Li, Z.M.; Li, Y.L.; Fu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.T.; Ying, X.J.; Ji, J.F. Four-Point Computed Tomography Scores for Evaluation of Occult Peritoneal Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Region-to-Region Comparison with Staging Laparoscopy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 27, 1103–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cao, R.; Tang, L.; Fang, M.; Zhong, L.; Wang, S.; Gong, L.; Li, J.; Dong, D.; Tian, J. Artificial intelligence in gastric cancer: Applications and challenges. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2022, 10, goac064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zheng, Q.; Yang, L.; Zeng, B.; Li, J.; Guo, K.; Liang, Y.; Liao, G. Artificial intelligence performance in detecting tumor metastasis from medical radiology imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 31, 100669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Li, Q.; Qi, L.; Feng, Q.X.; Liu, C.; Sun, S.W.; Zhang, J.; Yang, G.; Ge, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.D.; Liu, X.S. Machine Learning-Based Computational Models Derived From Large-Scale Radiographic-Radiomic Images Can Help Predict Adverse Histopathological Status of Gastric Cancer. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2019, 10, e00079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Wang, Y.; Liu, W.; Yu, Y.; Liu, J.J.; Jiang, L.; Xue, H.D.; Lei, J.; Jin, Z.; Yu, J.C. Prediction of the Depth of Tumor Invasion in Gastric Cancer: Potential Role of CT Radiomics. Acad. Radiol. 2020, 27, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, W.; Zhang, L.; Tian, C.; Song, H.; Fang, M.; Hu, C.; Zang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Dai, S.; Wang, F.; et al. Prognostic value of computed tomography radiomics features in patients with gastric cancer following curative resection. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 3079–3089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, L.; Guan, W.; Guan, Y.; Ge, Y.; He, J.; Zhou, Z. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis: Significance in T and N staging of gastric cancers. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Liu, S.; Zheng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, L.; Guan, W.; Guan, Y.; Ge, Y.; He, J.; Zhou, Z. Whole-volume apparent diffusion coefficient-based entropy parameters for assessment of gastric cancer aggressiveness. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018, 47, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yardimci, A.H.; Sel, I.; Bektas, C.T.; Yarikkaya, E.; Dursun, N.; Bektas, H.; Afsar, C.U.; Gursu, R.U.; Yardimci, V.H.; Ertas, E.; et al. Computed tomography texture analysis in patients with gastric cancer: A quantitative imaging biomarker for preoperative evaluation before neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Jpn. J. Radiol. 2020, 38, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, J.; Chen, L.; Guan, W.; Guan, Y.; Ge, Y.; He, J.; Zhou, Z. Predicting the nodal status in gastric cancers: The role of apparent diffusion coefficient histogram characteristic analysis. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017, 42, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, W.; Wang, S.; Dong, D.; Gao, X.; Zhou, K.; Li, J.; Lv, B.; Li, H.; Wu, X.; Fang, M.; et al. Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastasis in Advanced Gastric Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Radiomics. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Yang, J.; Wu, Q.; Xu, L.; Wang, Z.; Su, K.; Liu, R.; Yen, E.A.; Liu, S.; Qin, J.; Rong, Y.; et al. Integrating tumor and nodal radiomics to predict lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 150, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jiang, Y.; Wang, W.; Chen, C.; Zhang, X.; Zha, X.; Lv, W.; Xie, J.; Huang, W.; Sun, Z.; Hu, Y.; et al. Radiomics Signature on Computed Tomography Imaging: Association with Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Feng, Q.X.; Liu, C.; Qi, L.; Sun, S.W.; Song, Y.; Yang, G.; Zhang, Y.D.; Liu, X.S. An Intelligent Clinical Decision Support System for Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Gastric Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2019, 16, 952–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Dong, D.; Fang, M.J.; Tang, L.; Shan, X.H.; Gao, J.B.; Giganti, F.; Wang, R.P.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.X.; Palumbo, D.; et al. Deep learning radiomic nomogram can predict the number of lymph node metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer: An international multicenter study. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Dong, D.; Tang, L.; Li, Z.Y.; Fang, M.J.; Gao, J.B.; Shan, X.H.; Ying, X.J.; Sun, Y.S.; Fu, J.; Wang, X.X.; et al. Development and validation of an individualized nomogram to identify occult peritoneal metastasis in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Huang, Z.; Liu, D.; Chen, X.; He, D.; Yu, P.; Liu, B.; Wu, B.; Hu, J.; Song, B. Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based on Computed Tomography Images for the Preoperative Diagnosis of Occult Peritoneal Metastasis in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 601869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Jiang, Y.; Liang, X.; Wang, W.; Chen, C.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, X.; Li, N.; Chen, H.; Yu, J.; Xie, Y.; et al. Noninvasive Prediction of Occult Peritoneal Metastasis in Gastric Cancer Using Deep Learning. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2032269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bortot, B.; Mangogna, A.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Stabile, G.; Ricci, G.; Biffi, S. Image-guided cancer surgery: A narrative review on imaging modalities and emerging nanotechnology strategies. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2023, 21, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Boussedra, S.; Benoit, L.; Koual, M.; Bentivegna, E.; Nguyen-Xuan, H.T.; Bats, A.S.; Azais, H. Fluorescence guided surgery to improve peritoneal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review of available data. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 48, 1217–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Gastric cancer with serosal invasion.
Figure 1. Gastric cancer with serosal invasion.
Cancers 15 03425 g001
Figure 2. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of the greater omentum.
Figure 2. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of the greater omentum.
Cancers 15 03425 g002
Figure 3. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of parietal peritoneum and sigmoid colon.
Figure 3. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of parietal peritoneum and sigmoid colon.
Cancers 15 03425 g003
Table 1. Main cancer society recommendations on staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer.
Table 1. Main cancer society recommendations on staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer.
SocietyRecommendation
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [12]Indicated in
-
Resectable T3 and/or N+ GC when preoperative therapy is not considered;
-
Resectable cT1b or higher GC, with or without indication for preoperative chemoradiation;
-
Medically fit patients with unresectable disease.
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) [14]Indicated in
-
Potentially resectable stage IB-III GC for patients who are also candidates for perioperative chemotherapy [III, B].
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) [15]Indicated in
-
cT3-4 N0 M0 GC.
Contraindicated in
-
Obstructive, hemorrhagic, or perforated GC needing palliative surgery;
-
Early-stage GC (T1-2);
-
History of previous abdominal surgery.
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) [16]Weakly indicated in
-
Patients with advanced GC and high-risk predictors of peritoneal carcinomatosis (linitis plastic, Bormann type 3–4, poor histological differentiation, and suspected lymphadenopathy at CT scan).
Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) [18]Recommended in cases deemed to be at risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis not visible or doubtful at CT examination.
Required in many randomized clinical trials of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy.
PC, although limited by low sensitivity, is a useful completion of the final pathological staging.
GC: gastric cancer and PC: peritoneal cytology.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schena, C.A.; Laterza, V.; De Sio, D.; Quero, G.; Fiorillo, C.; Gunawardena, G.; Strippoli, A.; Tondolo, V.; de’Angelis, N.; Alfieri, S.; et al. The Role of Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives. Cancers 2023, 15, 3425. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133425

AMA Style

Schena CA, Laterza V, De Sio D, Quero G, Fiorillo C, Gunawardena G, Strippoli A, Tondolo V, de’Angelis N, Alfieri S, et al. The Role of Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives. Cancers. 2023; 15(13):3425. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133425

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schena, Carlo Alberto, Vito Laterza, Davide De Sio, Giuseppe Quero, Claudio Fiorillo, Gayani Gunawardena, Antonia Strippoli, Vincenzo Tondolo, Nicola de’Angelis, Sergio Alfieri, and et al. 2023. "The Role of Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives" Cancers 15, no. 13: 3425. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133425

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop