Cahill Ronan A, Leroy Joel, Marescaux Jacques
Department of Surgery, IRCAD/EITS, Strasbourg, France.
BMC Surg. 2008 Sep 24;8:17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-8-17.
Endoscopic resectional techniques for colon cancer are undermined by their inability to determine lymph node status. This limits their application to only those lesions at the most minimal risk of lymphatic dissemination whereas their technical capacity could allow intraluminal or even transluminal address of larger lesions. Sentinel node biopsy may theoretically address this breach although the variability of its reported results for this disease is worrisome.
Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were interrogated back to 1999 to identify all publications concerning lymphatic mapping for colon cancer with reference cross-checking for completeness. All reports were examined from the perspective of in vivo technique accuracy selectively in early stage disease (i.e. lesions potentially within the technical capacity of endoscopic resection).
Fifty-two studies detailing the experiences of 3390 patients were identified. Considerable variation in patient characteristics as well as in surgical and histological quality assurances were however evident among the studies identified. In addition, considerable contamination of the studies by inclusion of rectal cancer without subgroup separation was frequent. Indeed such is the heterogeneity of the publications to date, formal meta-analysis to pool patient cohorts in order to definitively ascertain technique accuracy in those with T1 and/or T2 cancer is not possible. Although lymphatic mapping in early stage neoplasia alone has rarely been specifically studied, those studies that included examination of false negative rates identified high T3/4 patient proportions and larger tumor size as being important confounders. Under selected circumstances however the technique seems to perform sufficiently reliably to allow it prompt consideration of its use to tailor operative extent.
The specific question of whether sentinel node biopsy can augment the oncological propriety for endoscopic resective techniques (including Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery [NOTES]) cannot be definitively answered at present. Study heterogeneity may account for the variability evident in the results from different centers. Enhanced capacity (perhaps to the level necessary to consider selective avoidance of en bloc mesenteric resection) by its confinement to only early stage disease is plausible although not proven. Specific study of the technique in early stage tumors is clearly essential before proffering this approach.
结肠癌的内镜切除技术因无法确定淋巴结状态而受到影响。这限制了它们仅适用于那些淋巴转移风险最低的病变,而其技术能力本可用于处理更大的腔内甚至跨腔病变。前哨淋巴结活检理论上可解决这一问题,尽管其针对该疾病报告结果的变异性令人担忧。
检索1999年以来的Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,以识别所有关于结肠癌淋巴绘图的出版物,并进行参考文献交叉核对以确保完整性。从体内技术准确性的角度,对所有报告进行选择性审查,重点关注早期疾病(即潜在可通过内镜切除技术处理的病变)。
共识别出52项详细描述3390例患者经验的研究。然而,在纳入的研究中,患者特征以及手术和组织学质量保证方面存在相当大的差异。此外,经常出现将直肠癌纳入研究且未进行亚组分离的情况,导致研究受到严重污染。实际上,迄今为止这些出版物的异质性非常大,因此无法进行正式的荟萃分析以汇总患者队列,从而确定T1和/或T2期癌症患者的技术准确性。虽然单独对早期肿瘤的淋巴绘图研究很少,但那些包括对假阴性率进行检查的研究发现,高T3/4期患者比例和更大的肿瘤大小是重要的混杂因素。然而,在特定情况下,该技术似乎表现得足够可靠,值得迅速考虑将其用于调整手术范围。
目前尚无法明确回答前哨淋巴结活检是否能增强内镜切除技术(包括经自然腔道内镜手术[NOTES])的肿瘤学合理性这一具体问题。研究异质性可能是不同中心结果存在明显差异的原因。虽然尚未得到证实,但仅将该技术应用于早期疾病,有可能提高其能力(或许达到考虑选择性避免整块肠系膜切除所需的水平)。在采用这种方法之前,显然有必要对早期肿瘤的该技术进行专门研究。