Emerging role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of lymphoma

Single-Port vs. Conventional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy

Background and Objectives

The purpose of the investigation was to compare clinical results and diagnostic accuracy for conventional multiport laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (MPLB) and single-port laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (SPLB) operations at a single institution.

Methods

A set of 20 SPLB patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2019 were compared to an historical series of 35 MPLB patients. Primary endpoints were the time of surgery, estimated blood loss, surgical conversion, length of stay and morbidity. The secondary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of the technique.

Results

SPLB was completed laparoscopically in all cases. Two MPLB patients (5.7%) experienced a surgical conversion due to intraoperative difficulties. Duration of surgery was similar in SPLB and MPLB groups respectively (84 ± 31.7 min vs. 81.1 ± 22.2; P = .455). A shorter duration of hospital stay was shown for patients operated on by SPLB compared to the MPLB group (1.7 ± 0.9 days vs. 2.1 ± 1.2 days; P = .133). The postoperative course was uneventful in both groups. In 95% of the SPLB and 97.1% of the MPLB cases respectively, LLB achieved the necessary information for the diagnosis.

Conclusion

SPLB has shown good procedural and postoperative outcomes as well as a high diagnostic yield, comparable to traditional MPLB. Therefore, our results show that this approach is safe and effective and can be an equally valid option to MPLB to obtain a diagnosis or to follow the progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. Further studies are necessary to support these results before its widespread adoption.

Feasibility of Single-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy for Intra-Abdominal Lymphoma: A Case Series

Background: Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy through a multi-port access (MPLB) is a well-established technique for intra-abdominal lymphoma diagnosis. The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility and the diagnostic accuracy of the single-port laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (SPLB) in intra-abdominal lymphoma. Materials and Methods: Between October 2016 and February 2019, 15 patients underwent SPLB to rule out or to follow the progression of a lymphoma. The clinical outcome and the pathology reports were analyzed retrospectively. Results: SPLB was completed laparoscopically in all cases. The total number of biopsies performed for each procedure was sometimes multiple (median: 2; range: 1-3). Duration of surgery was 85 ± 32 minutes (range: 75-105 minutes). Length of hospitalization was 1.8 ± 0.7 days (range: 1-3 days). No major postoperative complications occurred. A cutaneous infection managed conservatively was observed in a patient. In 10 patients, SPLB was used to establish a diagnosis whereas in 5 patients it was performed to follow a progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. In 93.3% of the cases, SPLB achieved the correct diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic decisions. Conclusion: SPLB has shown good procedure and postoperative outcomes as well as a high diagnostic yield, comparable to literature data on traditional MPLB. Therefore, our results show that this approach is safe and effective and can be an equally valid option to MPLB to obtain a diagnosis or to follow the progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. Further studies are necessary to support these results before its widespread adoption.

Should laparoscopic lymph node biopsy be the preferred diagnostic modality for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy?

Background

Isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy is frequently detected, but often challenging to diagnose. To obtain a tissue diagnosis, percutaneous biopsy (pb) or laparoscopic biopsy (lb) is often undertaken. The safety profiles and diagnostic accuracy of pb and lb within the abdomen are both poorly defined.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, we identified all patients who underwent lb or pb for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy at our institute during 2008-2016.

Results

Of 62 patients who underwent nodal biopsy for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy, 33 underwent lb and 29 underwent pb. For the 33 patients who underwent lb, the procedure was diagnostic in 100% of cases; for the 29 who underwent pb, the procedure was diagnostic in 18 cases (62.1%). Both procedures were safe, with similar complication rates (6.0% for lb; 7.0% for pb).

Conclusions

Our results establish that lb and pb are both safe and reliable in the setting of isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy. We also demonstrate that each procedure has situational advantages. A pb should be considered to be the upfront diagnostic modality, particularly when anatomic or disease factors favour its success. In situations in which it is felt that pb cannot safely access the lymphadenopathy or in disease states in which the yield of a core biopsy will be insufficient, lb should be strongly considered. Examples include extra-retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and cases of suspected lymphoma.

Advantage of urological experience with both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in lymph node biopsy for malignant lymphoma diagnosis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic urologists are familiar with both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. That experience is an advantage when devising a strategy for intra-abdominal lymph node biopsy. We report the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic biopsy using a urological laparoscopic technique for the treatment of patients with clinically suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From October 2010 to April 2015, a total of 22 patients underwent laparoscopic biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma. We adopted a retroperitoneal approach for paraaortic or paracaval masses, whereas we used a transperitoneal approach for mesenteric, iliac, or obturator masses. Whenever possible, an entire node was removed; otherwise, the biopsy consisted of wedge resection sized at least 1 cm³.

RESULTS

Biopsy specimens were obtained from the following lymph node sites: 10 paraaortic, 5 paracaval, 3 mesenteric, 2 obturator, 1 common iliac, and 1 perinephric fat. Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy was completed in all patients, and there were no conversions to open surgery. The median operating time was 97 minutes (range, 62-167 minutes). The estimated blood loss was <50 mL in all cases. Postoperatively, one patient (4.5%) had symptomatic chylous lymphocele that required surgical intervention. Precise diagnosis was established for all patients: malignant lymphoma in 20 patients and metastatic urothelial carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of unknown origin in 1 patient each. All lymphomas could be fully subclassified.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate use of the transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach is safe and effective for laparoscopic lymph node biopsy in patients with suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma.

Laparoscopy has a superior diagnostic yield than percutaneous image-guided biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

To date, no study has compared laparoscopy (LB) to percutaneous (PB) biopsy for the diagnosis of abdominal lymphoma. The objective of this study is to compare the success rate and safety profile of laparoscopic lymph node biopsy to the percutaneous approach in patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy concerning for lymphoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a multi-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing lymph node biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma between 2005 and 2013. Our primary outcome was adequate tissue yield between the two techniques, both for histologic diagnosis and for ancillary studies such as flow cytometry. Secondary outcomes included 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission rates, the need for additional lymph node biopsy procedures, and length of stay.

RESULTS

All 34 of the LB patients had adequate specimen for histologic diagnosis compared to 92.3% of patients with a PB (p = 0.18). Significantly more patients in the LB group had sufficient tissue for ancillary studies when needed than in the PB group, 95.5 and 68.2%, respectively (p = 0.04). A second biopsy was pursued in 23.1% of failed PB patients, 0% with success on second attempt.

DISCUSSION

When index of suspicion is high or when biopsy is performed for patient previously diagnosed with lymphoma and recurrence/transformation is suspected, LB safely and consistently provides adequate tissue for initial diagnosis and for ancillary studies. In contrast, image-guided PB may be more appropriate for patients for whom ancillary studies are unlikely to add to planned treatments or when there is a high risk of complications from either general anesthesia or patient comorbidities.

Role of diagnostic laparoscopy in chronic abdominal conditions with uncertain diagnosis

Introduction:

Laparoscopy has proved to be an important tool in the minimally invasive exploration of selected patients with chronic abdominal disorders, whose diagnosis remains uncertain, despite exploring the requisite laboratory and imaging investigations like ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) scan, and the like.

Materials and Methods:

Diagnostic Laparoscopy was conducted on 120 patients, admitted to the Departments of Surgery and Gynecology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, with an uncertain diagnosis after four weeks of onset of symptoms.

Conclusion:

With laparoscopy providing tissue diagnosis, and helping to achieve the final diagnosis without any significant complication and less operative time, it can be safely concluded that diagnostic laparoscopy is a safe, quick, and effective adjunct to non-surgical diagnostic modalities, for establishing a conclusive diagnosis, but whether it will replace imaging studies as a primary modality for diagnosis needs more evidence.

Efficacy of laparoscopic mesenteric/retroperitoneal lymph node biopsy

BACKGROUND

Lymphadenopathy-identified incidentally during computed tomography (CT) mandates a tissue diagnosis. When percutaneous techniques are not possible, surgical tissue diagnosis becomes necessary. Laparotomy is the current gold standard; however a laparoscopic approach offers many potential benefits.

METHODS

This institutional review board (IRB)-approved study evaluated all patients undergoing laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node biopsy from 2001 to 2007 at the Cleveland Clinic. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed for age, sex, pathologic diagnosis, conversion to laparotomy, and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 cases were reviewed. In this group, 67% were males and 33% were female; mean age was 48 years. Ten patients underwent mesenteric lymph node sampling and 20 (67%) underwent retroperitoneal tumor resection. There were four (17%) conversions and no complications. Lymphoma was the most common pathologic finding.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy is a safe effective alternative to open surgical biopsy.

Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy in intra-abdominal lymphoma: high diagnostic accuracy achieved with a minimally invasive procedure

Ultrasound or computed tomography-guided percutaneous lymph nodes biopsy often do not supply sufficient tissue for the histopathologic diagnosis of a lymphoma. Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (LLB) has the advantage of obtaining the entire lymph node and avoiding the invasivity and all the possible complications of a laparotomy. The aim of the present study is to assess the safety and diagnostic accuracy of the LLB in intra-abdominal lymphoma. Between April 1999 and October 2005, 36 LLB were performed in 35 patients to rule out or to follow the progression of a lymphoma. The clinical outcome and the pathology reports were analyzed retrospectively. A conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 2 cases due to intraoperative difficulties (5.8%). No major postoperative complications or mortality occurred. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 days. In 9 patients, LLB was performed to follow a possible progression of the lymphoma, whereas in 26 patients it was used to establish a diagnosis. Two repeated LLB were necessary to achieve a correct diagnosis in 1 patient. Fourteen patients had non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 6 patients had Hodgkin lymphoma, 9 patients presented an infiltration by primitive or metastatic tumors, and 7 patients had benign lymphadenopathy. In 97% of the cases, LLB supplied the necessary information for the correct diagnosis, classification, and subsequent therapeutic decisions. In conclusion, LLB is a safe and effective procedure. Its diagnostic accuracy is superior to percutaneous techniques. LLB can be proposed as the procedure of choice to sample deep lymphatic tissues in patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy at a very low morbidity rate and as an outpatient procedure in selected cases.

[Laparoscopic biopsy of non-digestive intra-abdominal masses]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery offers an alternative diagnostic technique in multiple diseases requiring biopsy of non-digestive intra-abdominal masses in which image-guided biopsy cannot be performed. Laparoscopic biopsy aims to reduce the surgical aggression and complications associated with laparotomy and favors the early treatment of malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We performed a retrospective descriptive study of our results in a series of patients in our hospital with intra-abdominal masses of unknown etiology who underwent laparoscopic surgery between January 2001 and April 2006. None of the patients were candidates for image-guided percutaneous biopsy.

RESULTS

We carried out 23 biopsies: 8 retroperitoneal (34.7%), 5 mesenteric (21.7%), 5 hepatic, 4 pelvic, and 1 in the iliac chain, as well as 5 complementary biopsies. In all patients, sufficient material for histologic diagnosis was obtained. The mean operating time was 71 minutes. Length of hospital stay was less than 24 hours in 61% of the patients. The median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach allows complete visualization and examination of the entire peritoneal cavity. Laparoscopic biopsy is a safe and effective procedure with excellent patient recovery and allows early definitive treatment.

Diagnostic pathology of lymphoproliferative disorders

The last 20 years have seen a dramatic change in the way we classify, and therefore diagnose, lymphoma. Two decades ago, the International Working Formulation enabled diagnosis and management on the basis of H&E sections alone, with no mandatory requirement for immunophenotyping, molecular studies or any other ancillary investigations. The concept of categorisation by 'clinicopathological entities' defined by clinical features, morphology, immunophenotype and more recently, genotype, began with the Kiel, and Lukes and Collins classifications in the late 1970s, becoming fully expressed in the REAL and subsequently WHO classifications. The current, multidisciplinary approach to categorisation adds significantly to the task facing the anatomical pathologist, since it requires distribution of biopsy material to all the appropriate specialised laboratories, the gathering of a range of cross-disciplinary information, the correlation of all diagnostic findings, deduction of a definitive diagnosis and, finally, integration of all the above into a single multiparameter report. In this review, we summarise the contemporary approach to the biopsy, diagnosis and reporting of lymphoproliferative disorders.

Surgical biopsy in lymphoma

The term 'lymphoma' describes malignant lymphoproliferative diseases that originate from B- and T-cells in the lymphatic system. The majority of lymphomas arise from lymph nodes, while some may originate in extranodal sites. Lymphoma is a common cancer, affecting approximately 4000 people in Australia per year, and constituting 4% of newly diagnosed cancers. Lymphoma is primarily a disease of adults, and is the sixth most common cancer in men, after prostate, colorectal, lung, melanoma and bladder, and the fifth most common cancer in women, after breast, colorectal, melanoma and lung.

Laparoscopy for the definitive diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients with suspected primary or recurrent lymphoma who underwent laparoscopy between March 1991 and March 2003 were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, operative, and pathologic data were collected. The feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the laparoscopic procedure were assessed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic biopsy was attempted in 94 patients. In 78 patients (83%), the procedure was completed laparoscopically. Conversion to laparotomy was undertaken in 16 patients (17%), most commonly because of inadequate exposure, insufficient tissue, or postoperative adhesions. Among the 69 cases of lymphoma, 55 (80%) were diagnosed via laparoscopy only, 9 (13%) via laparotomy, and 5 (7%) with later procedures. Of the remaining 25 patients, 7 had nonlymphoma disease (4 occult carcinomas, 1 multiple myeloma, 1 epithelioid leiomyosarcoma, and 1 neuroblastoma), and 18 had benign lymphadenopathy (no evidence of lymphoma with a mean follow-up of 53 months). The laparoscopic procedure resulted in false-negative results in 6 patients (6%). The mean hospital stay for patients having a laparotomy was 6 days (range, 3-10 days); the remaining patients were all outpatients. The only Intraoperative laparoscopic complication was hemorrhage that required laparotomy. This event occurred in a patient with a previously undiagnosed neuroblastoma.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy safely provides adequate tissue for full histological evaluation on an outpatient basis in most patients with intra-abdominal lymphoma.

Accuracy of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and staging of lymphoproliferative diseases

Laparoscopy seems to be playing an emerging role in the management of lymphoproliferative diseases. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze personal experience evaluating the role and limits of laparoscopy in the management of lymphomas. From July 1993 to December 2000, 131 consecutive patients were referred to our institution for primary diagnosis (group A, n = 70), suspected relapse (reassessment) (group B, n = 54), or staging/restaging of lymphoproliferative diseases (group C, n = 7). Diagnostic and/or operative laparoscopy was performed in all patients. To assess the accuracy of laparoscopy, the results were analyzed according to the indications for surgery. In all, 128 procedures were completed laparoscopically (95.5%). Conversion was required in 7 cases (5.1%). Causes of the conversions were severe obesity (body mass index 62.5), uncontrolled intraoperative bleeding (HIV+), nondiagnostic tissue sampling (2 cases), perisplenic inflammation and perisplenic abscesses (3 cases). The results of this study highlight the safety of diagnostic and staging laparoscopy and laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases (major complications 2.9%, perioperative mortality 0%). In all, 96.4% of patients from group A and 100% of patients from group B were treated on the basis of laparoscopic findings. No false negative diagnosis occurred. Laparoscopy may become the "gold standard" in the management of lymphoproliferative disease in the following settings: for the differential diagnosis of hepatic and/or splenic focal lesions; when percutaneous needle biopsy fails and/or genetic analysis is needed for therapeutic decision; for the primary diagnosis and abdominal staging of patients with diffuse retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy in the absence of peripheral lymphadenopathy; for cases of abdominal restaging after concurrent chemoradiotherapy and in cases of suspected relapse when percutaneous biopsy is not technically possible; and for patients with lymphoproliferative disease when splenectomy is required. Marked splenomegaly with perisplenic inflammatory reaction and lymphadenopathy in HIV+ patients should be considered possible causes of failure of the laparoscopic approach.

Is it wise to eliminate lymphography from the staging of Hodgkin's disease?

We believe that lymphography and CT are complementary rather than mutually exclusive techniques for the diagnosis and staging of HD. Unfortunately, it seems that many radiologists and clinicians disregard the ability of lymphography to provide qualitative information on lymph node architecture, which is not available by CT. The use of lymphography is declining in several teaching centers throughout the world. This makes it difficult for young radiologists to acquire the skills needed to perform and interpret lymphographies successfully. In turn, radiologists who have little experience with lymphography are less likely to use the technique. Because most of the treatment-related morbidity in HD is dose-related, and because lymphography helps to avoid over- and undertreatment, we believe that high-quality lymphography continues to have a significant role in the staging of selected HD patients. Moreover. lymphography may reduce both the cost of management and the morbidity rate in many HD patients. One solution would be to continue to use lymphography in a small number of institutions specialized in the management of HD.

Role of laparoscopy in the staging of malignant disease

Although diagnostic laparoscopy has been used by surgeons and gastroenterologists since the early 1900s, today's surgical oncologists have been relatively slow to embrace this technology. Together with the fervor and benefits afforded by laparoscopic therapeutic interventions in the management of patients with benign disease and the diagnostic usefulness in blunt trauma and abdominal pain, awareness has been rekindled regarding the advantages of laparoscopy for the staging of abdominal malignancy. As surgeons begin to realize that extirpative procedures are doomed to failure in curing patients with diffuse abdominal metastases disclosed on laparoscopic assessment, palliative measures, such as stent placement, ablative procedures, balloon dilatation, intraluminal high-dose radiation, and laser techniques will be used commonly by surgical endoscopists and gastroenterologists. Similarly, it is hoped that the use of systemic chemotherapy will achieve better specificity in cell destruction in patients identified laparoscopically to have uncontained disease in the abdominal cavity. The sensitivity of sonography combined with laparoscopy has been shown to approach that of celiotomy in the evaluation of solid organs, thereby avoiding unnecessary laparotomy and its associated morbidities. Using sonography as a complement to laparoscopy will extend the usefulness of both techniques. The application of laparoscopy and the advent of miniaturized laparoscopic instrumentation (Fig. 7), both diagnostic and therapeutic, in the management of patients with abdominal malignancy will be limited only by the creativity and expertise of physicians and instrument makers.

Laparoscopic Ultrasound Enhances Diagnostic Laparoscopy in the Staging of Intra-Abdominal Neoplasms

Routine laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) for staging intra-abdominal malignancies remains controversial. Thus, we undertook a prospective study to assess the value of preoperative laparoscopy with LUS for patients with intra-abdominal tumors judged resectable by preoperative studies. Laparoscopy was successfully performed in 76 of 77 patients, and 60 underwent LUS. Of 33 patients with presumed pancreatic cancer, laparoscopic findings changed the operative management of 11 patients, and LUS altered the management of an additional 6 patients. Laparotomy was avoided in 9 patients (27%). Among 14 patients with hepatobiliary tumors, laparotomy was avoided in 9 patients in whom laparoscopy and/or LUS revealed either benign or advanced disease. Operative management was altered in 4 of 18 patients with gastric or esophageal cancer by laparoscopic findings. LUS did not add to the management of these patients. Of 12 patients with presumed intra-abdominal lymphoma, 9 were diagnosed with lymphoma and 3 with benign disease, without laparotomy in all but 1 case. Laparoscopy and LUS are valuable tools for evaluating the resectability of pancreatic and hepatobiliary tumors. Laparoscopy, and to a lesser degree LUS, greatly facilitates diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphomas and spares an occasional patient with esophagogastric carcinoma from undergoing laparotomy.

Adult soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a group of anatomically and histologically diverse tumours. They account for about 1% of adult malignancies, and about 50% of patients diagnosed with sarcoma eventually die of the disease. These tumours are grouped together because of shared biological characteristics and treatment responses.

METHODS

A review of the key literature on STS was undertaken, complemented by data taken from the prospectively accumulated database of 3442 patients treated for STS at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from July 1982 to December 1997.

RESULTS

Despite advances in knowledge of the molecular genetics of STS, the aetiology in most cases remains elusive. Management has been gradually refined over the last two decades. Core biopsy usually provides enough material for diagnosis. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging provide a similar amount of information, which is usually adequate for surgical planning. Amputation as standard treatment for extremity lesions has been replaced by limb-sparing surgery in about 90% of patients. The role of adjuvant radiation has been further defined: it has been shown to be unnecessary for completely excised tumours less than 5 cm in diameter, but effective in decreasing local recurrence for others. Adjuvant chemotherapy has been controversial for many years. Recent meta-analysis of randomized trial results has found a small reduction in local and distant relapse, and a trend to better overall survival. Recurrent or metastatic disease should be completely excised if possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue sarcoma requires multidisciplinary care tailored to the individual patient and tumour for optimal results.