We thank the authors for their interest in our article “Outcomes of Conversion Surgery for Metastatic Gastric Cancer Compared with In-Front Surgery Plus Palliative Chemotherapy or In-Front Surgery Alone” [1]. We also acknowledge their critical insight and sharing their data regarding the evaluation on peritoneal carcinomatosis [2].
Patients with stage IV gastric cancer are a heterogenous population with various disease characteristics and extension. One of the crucial points for conversion surgery is to select the right patients who are feasible and may benefit from this therapeutic approach. Therefore, it is important to assess treatment responses accurately to tailor the following treatment plans. The authors proposed their opinion of applying combined peritoneal assessment based on computed tomography and RECIST 1.1 criteria to evaluate tumor response after therapies, especially for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Indeed, computed tomography had limitations on determining the peritoneal metastasis, particularly for those low-volume tumors on peritoneal surfaces or at a difficult location [3]. Nonetheless, multidetector computed tomography is the most widely used tool for detection and evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis [4], which is still the first choice modality for assessing peritoneal conditions in gastric cancer, suggested by the ESCO guidelines [5]. Except for computed tomography scans, other diagnostic modalities, including magnetic resonance images, positron emission tomography scans, gastrointestinal endoscopies, or a biopsy of suspicious lesion, could be adopted to appraise treatment response [6]. In addition, clinical data, such as changes of patients’ general performance status, tumor markers, body weight and nutrition status, as well as laboratory examinations, can also provide valuable information to submit the patient into a gastric cancer team for the discussion of conversion surgery. Due to the drawbacks of noninvasive image modalities, diagnostic laparoscopy remains a useful method to clarify peritoneal carcinomatosis with the highest accuracy [7,8]. Furthermore, cytoreductive surgery (CC0 or CC1) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy might offer an alternative to improve the overall survival for fit patients with a peritoneal cancer index score < 12 [9]. However, a large-scale randomized trial is needed to validate this approach. More efforts should also be made to overcome the obstacle of detection of peritoneal metastasis.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.-W.K. and J.-T.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-W.K. and J.-T.H.; writing—review and editing, J.-T.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by Chang Gung Medical Research Program, Taiwan (CMRPG3I0103).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Huang, R.-Y.; Kou, H.-W.; Le, P.-H.; Kuo, C.-J.; Chen, T.-H.; Wang, S.-Y.; Chen, J.-S.; Yeh, T.-S.; Hsu, J.-T. Outcomes of Conversion Surgery for Metastatic Gastric Cancer Compared with In-Front Surgery Plus Palliative Chemotherapy or In-Front Surgery Alone. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzei, M.A.; Bagnacci, G.; Perrella, A.; Di Meglio, N.; Piccioni, S.A.; Bloise, F.; Marrelli, D.; Milandri, C.; Mura, G. Some Concerns from a Radiological Point of View. Comment on Huang et al. Outcomes of Conversion Surgery for Metastatic Gastric Cancer Compared with In-Front Surgery Plus Palliative Chemotherapy or In-Front Surgery Alone. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 555. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacquet, P.; Jelinek, J.S.; Steves, M.A.; Sugarbaker, P.H. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcino-matosis. Cancer 1993, 72, 1631–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panagiotopoulou, P.B.; Courcoutsakis, N.; Tentes, A.; Prassopoulos, P. CT imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis with surgical correlation: A pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2021, 12, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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 (Suppl. 5), v38–v49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, R.S.; Dromain, C.; Violi, N.V. Imaging of Gastric Carcinomatosis. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nakamura, M.; Ojima, T.; Nakamori, M.; Katsuda, M.; Tsuji, T.; Hayata, K.; Kato, T.; Yamaue, H. Conversion Surgery for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis Based on the Diagnosis of Second-Look Staging Laparoscopy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 23, 1758–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yasufuku, I.; Nunobe, S.; Ida, S.; Kumagai, K.; Ohashi, M.; Hiki, N.; Sano, T. Conversion therapy for peritoneal lavage cytology-positive type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer patients selected as candidates for R0 resection by diagnostic staging laparoscopy. Gastric Cancer 2020, 23, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, S.D.; Kirkpatrick, D.; Thomas, P.; Loggie, B.W. Current perspectives on hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Gastrointest. Cancer Targets Ther. 2017, 7, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).