Double contrast examination of the stomach compared with endoscopy

3D CT protocol in the assessment of the esophageal neoplastic lesions: can it improve TNM staging?

The purpose of this prospective observational study was the evaluation of the usefulness of MPR reconstructions and virtual endoscopy in the study of the esophageal carcinoma. Thirty-nine patients with esophageal cancer proved by means of endoscopy, underwent preoperative TNM staging with dynamic CT of the chest and abdomen with the aid of 3D rendering. Twenty-six patients underwent surgery, and the CT results were compared with histopathologic findings. In staging the T parameter, the CT with 3D reconstructions and virtual endoscopy, showed a sensitivity of 92% and an accuracy of 88%. In staging lymph nodes, the sensitivity in our study was 85%, the specificity 58%, and the accuracy 69%. Our protocol of the study of the esophageal cancer with 3D CT and virtual endoscopy, demonstrated a high concordance with the surgical and pathologic findings. The 3D reconstructed images were very helpful to the surgeons regarding preoperative planning. We performed an observational enquiry, and although this was a small study, it has, however, confirmed that the 3D imaging of the esophagus represents a valuable advantage to conventional imaging. Further studies with a larger number of patients are needed to prove its superiority to traditional CT imaging of the esophagus.

Surgical treatment of gastric cancer. Proximal, mid, and distal stomach

At present, only radical surgical resection of gastric cancer offers a chance for cure. The objective of an operation for patients with disease that is confined locally is to maximize the potential for cure. The objective for patients with advanced incurable disease, obstruction, hemorrhage, and intractable pain is to provide the best palliation. The evaluation, staging, and surgical management of gastric cancer are described.

Routine practice in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the stomach: a survey of tumours diagnosed in the Portsmouth and Oxford Health Districts 1979-1980

If the poor prognosis for patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach is to be improved, it is important to make the diagnosis at an early stage. In order to evaluate our routine diagnostic practice, we have performed a retrospective study of patients in the Portsmouth and Oxford Health Districts who were diagnosed as having adenocarcinoma of the stomach during 1979 and 1980. Three hundred and forty-two patients were identified; the great majority had advanced disease at the first presentation. Only 9 patients (2.6%) were identified as having early gastric carcinoma and a total of 46 patients (13.4%) had either Stage 1 or 2 disease. Despite the provision of an endoscopy service, gastric carcinoma is still being diagnosed at an advanced stage. Initial false negative investigations caused a delay in diagnosis in 18.4% of patients. During the year preceding diagnosis (when tumour was likely to have been present), the false negative rate for barium meal examination was 25.5% and for endoscopy 13.5%. Negative results should not deter us from pursuing the diagnosis of tumour in those patients with persisting symptoms.

Radiologic examination in gastric cancer. A retrospective study of 188 patients

The accuracy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer was investigated in 188 histologically proven cases, including 12 cases of early gastric cancer. One hundred and sixty-five of 167 patients (99%) were recorded radiologically as having a gastric lesion. The initial diagnosis was carcinoma in 144 patients (86%), and benign lesion in 21 cases (13%). In 2 cases (1%) no abnormalities were seen. In 3 out of 9 patients with a partial gastrectomy (33%) an incorrect diagnosis was made. In 11 of 12 patients with early gastric cancer the radiologic examination revealed abnormal findings, but 7 of these were incorrectly interpreted as benign. A retrospective analysis of the radiologic examination in which no malignancies were reported showed that inadequacy of the examination technique and misinterpretation of radiologic signs of malignancy were the main causes of failure in diagnosing of malignancy. The rate of misinterpretation of malignancy as a benign lesion (13%) justifies the endoscopic control of every radiologically detected abnormality. The high sensitivity in detecting a lesion indicates, however, that a biphasic radiologic examination is a safe screening method in gastric cancer. Endoscopy with biopsy showed a lesion in 156 out of 160 patients (98%), but in 11 of these (7%) the initial examination did not yield histologic proof of malignancy. In 4 patients (2%) no abnormalities were observed by endoscopists. One hundred and forty-nine patients were examined with both radiology and endoscopy with biopsy. A malignant lesion with recognition of its malignant character was defined in 144 cases (97%).

The double-contrast barium meal: a correlation with endoscopy

The radiological and endoscopic findings are described in 214 patients with 252 lesions in whom endoscopy had been requested by a radiologist either to confirm or clarify a radiological opinion. There was radiological and endoscopic agreement about the presence or absence of oesophagitis in 73% of patients, but there was agreement about the presence or absence of duodenitis in only 48%. There were only two cases of early gastric cancer, and no early gastric cancers were found in a group of 43 patients on whom endoscopy had been specifically requested because of an abnormal gastric mucosal pattern. Endoscopy failed to detect 13% of gastric ulcers at the initial endoscopic examination.

Double versus single contrast gastrointestinal radiology

With experience, air contrast examination of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum can be performed routinely as quickly and easily as the standard UGI. The air contrast examination is superior for detection of small gastric polyps and the Japanese have found it superior for detection of early carcinoma. The postoperative stomach and the fundus and cardia are most easily examined by air contrast. Clear superiority in the diagnosis of peptic ulcers and peptic esophagitis has not been proved. The most accurate routine examination may be a multiphasic or combined approach utilizing air contrast views as well as filled compression views and careful fluoroscopy. With respect to the colon, we do not suggest that air contrast BE must be done exclusively. However, it is superior for the detection of polyps and small carcinomas. The technique should be available in all radiology departments and should be an integral part of the evaluation of patients at increased risk of developing carcinoma. This includes patients over 40 years of age, with chronic ulcerative colitis, familial multiple polyposis or Gardner's syndrome, family history of inherited cancer, and medical history of adenomatous polyps, colorectal cancer, or female genital cancer. In addition, air contrast enema should be utilized for the sensitive and accurate evaluation of early inflammatory bowel disease. Finally, with respect to the colon examination one fact must be stressed. Irregardless of full column or air contrast method, most missed lesions are due to poor bowel preparation, poor technique, or perceptive error by the radiologist. There can be no substitute for a clean colon, meticulous attention to technical details, and careful review of the radiographs.