An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A
.gov website belongs to an official
government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you've safely
connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive
information only on official, secure websites.
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:
PMC Disclaimer
|
PMC Copyright Notice
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Nodal staging is of crucial importance in the management of gastric cancer (GC). The available modalities of nodal imaging in GC do not provide a high sensitivity and specificity of lymph node status. Comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and multislice spiral computed tomography in GC has shown greater accuracy of EUS for N staging. EUS is not used routinely in patients with GC as it is not available at all centers, and its accuracy is operator dependent. Standard techniques of identification of nodal station (as suggested by Japanese Research Society for the Study of Gastric Cancer) by EUS have not been described so far. Identification of each nodal station by EUS requires adequate knowledge of anatomy as well as understanding the proper technique to perform EUS. This review presents a method to identify the regional nodal stations of GC by linear EUS and hence will help in appropriate N staging of GC.
Gastric carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, however, its incidence varies greatly between Eastern and Western countries.[1] The most important prognostic factors in gastric cancer (GC) include depth of invasion, lymph node (LN) involvement, and distant metastases.[2,3] Preoperative knowledge of LN status is helpful for clinical staging and for planning the optimal treatment. The Japanese Research Society for the Study of Gastric Cancer (JRSGC) has described 16 nodal stations, which surround the stomach, and depending upon the location of the primary tumor; they are grouped into N1, N2, and N3 groups [Figures 1a and b].[4] In general station N1 LNs are perigastric in location, N2 LNs lie around celiac artery (CAL) and its branches and N3 LNs are found in the ligaments surrounding stomach and in retroperitoneum.[5] Most investigators have found, high sensitivity (60-90%) and relatively low specificity of multidetector spiral computed tomography (MDCT) for nodal staging.[6,7] The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging is considered to be inferior to MDCT for N staging.[8] Staging accuracy, and decision-making, is improved when positron emission tomography (PET) and CT are both utilized rather than either alone.[9] Currently, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is accepted as the most efficient diagnostic method for T staging and has been found efficient for N staging also.[10,11,12] Comparative study of EUS and multislice spiral CT in GC has shown greater accuracy of EUS for N staging.[13] The most recent guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network introduced EUS as a preferred modality of GC staging if no evidence of M1 disease is present at CT-PET.[14] EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology of LN stations defined by international association of study of lung cancer has made a significant impact in the management of lung cancer.[15,16,17,18] The use of EUS in the preoperative determination of LN status in patients with GC can have a significant impact on patient management.[19] EUS elastography significantly improves the specificity of LN staging in esophageal cancer and can be useful in GC also.[12,20] A technique for identification of individual LN stations suggested by JRSGC has not been described so far by EUS. This article presents a technique to identify the regional nodal stations of GC by EUS.
PROCEDURE
Two scanning methods are used for EUS examination of the stomach and duodenum: The water-filling method (by introducing 300-500 ml of 0.9% isotonic saline solution into the stomach) and the balloon contact method. A systematic examination of retroperitoneal organs and the vessels is required. Retroperitoneal organs (kidney, spleen, pancreas and adrenal gland) are identified by their characteristic appearance. The examination of vessels of portal venous system, aorta and its branches and the inferior vena cava and its tributaries is done by conventional techniques.[21,22] During imaging of LN stations additional efforts are made to follow the course of vessels as far as possible with the help of color Doppler. This helps in tracing the course of vessels in the ligaments surrounding the stomach and duodenum where the N2 and N3 LNs are located. On EUS, the ligaments of stomach can be identified as hyperechoic areas between two adjacent organs on the lesser curvature (hepatogastric and hepatoduodenal ligament-lesser omentum)[23] and greater curvature (gastrophrenic, gastrosplenic, lienorenal and gastrocolic ligament-greater omentum). The LNs are identified by their characteristic appearance. The scanning is done in a systematic way to identify each LN station [Figures 1a and b, Video 1 and table].[4] The imaging of peri-gastric LNs (N1 stations 1-6) is done from esophagogastric junction and fundus for stations 1 and 2, from body of the stomach for stations 3 and 4 and from the antrum and the first part of the duodenum for stations 5 and 6 [Figures 2–11]. Following the course of blood vessels helps in imaging of N2 group LNs: Left gastric artery [station 7, Figure 12], common hepatic artery [station 8, Figures 13–15], CAL [station 9, Figures 16 and 17] and splenic artery [stations 10 and 11, Figures 18–20]. Imaging of N3 groups of LNs can be done from several positions. Screening of hepatoduodenal ligament is done from 1st part of the duodenum for station 12 [Figures 21–24]. The posterior aspect of the pancreas is scanned from stomach and duodenum for station 13 [Figures 25 and 26]. The root of the mesentery is seen from stomach and from descending duodenum for station 14 [Figures 27 and 28]. The transverse mesocolon and inferior aspect of PAN is seen from a third part of the duodenum after identifying the course of superior mesenteric artery for station 15 [Figures 29 and 30]. Para-aortic nodes of station 16 are visualized from stomach as well as from duodenum [Figures 31–37]. Imaging of station 17 is done from the posterior wall of the stomach for LN lying anterior to the PAN [Figure 38]. Imaging of station 18 is done from stomach and the horizontal part of the duodenum [Figure 39]. Imaging of station 19 is done from esophagogastic junction [Figure 40]. The LN of station 20 is located near the aortic hiatus [Figure 41]. Additional imaging of LN of lower thoracic, paraesophageal and diaphragmatic area is done from stomach and esophagogastric junction [Figures 42a–d]. In this case the linear EUS scope model – 3870 UTK Pentax, Tokyo, Japan and color Doppler Machine: Hitachi EUB-7500; Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan was used for evaluation.
The nomenclature of nodal stations in abdomen is based primarily on the relationship of the lymphatic drainage (LNs) that follows the accompanying vessel (artery and vein) or a direct relationship with the regional organ. The accompanying vessels traverse through the ligaments surrounding stomach and the metastatic nodes commonly reside in ligaments rather than the retroperitoneum.[24] Soon after the first descriptions of the five-layer structure of the gastric wall,[25] EUS became a standard technique for the staging of GC. Until a few years ago, the impact of EUS in GC was limited by the lack of therapeutic options, surgery being the only recourse either with curative or with palliative intent. The clinical arena of GC has changed substantially in recent years as treatments have become more numerous. Besides the traditional surgical approach, endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection are adopted for the early stages of the disease, and neoadjuvant therapies are used for the advanced stages. As a consequence, the potential role of EUS in GC has become much more attractive to identify the patients suitable for minimally invasive treatment, those who should undergo primary surgery, and those who need neoadjuvant therapy.[10] Under- or over-staging of LN disease has been noted when EUS is used alone[26] and a multimodality imaging with CT, PET scan along with EUS and EUS-FNA of nodal stations may provide a more detailed staging. The additional value of EUS-FNA over EUS alone for N and M staging of GC are emphasized in a study where distant LN and liver metastases were detected by EUS-FNA in 42% of the patients, and CT of the abdomen or thorax had previously failed to show any abnormality.[27] Although preliminary reports have yielded conflicting results in this respect, GC restaging after neoadjuvant treatment is likely to emerge as another clinical task for endosonographers.[2] The practical impact and use of EUS in treatment decisions in GC patients is lower than would have been expected from the EUS. This may be due to lack of application of EUS for N staging. EUS-FNA should be considered an integral part of the EUS staging procedure for GC in the near future. This review elaborately describes the technique for proper identification of nodal stations by EUS.
2.Park SR, Kim MJ, Ryu KW, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative clinical staging assessed by computed tomography in resectable gastric cancer patients: A viewpoint in the era of preoperative treatment. Ann Surg. 2010;251:428–35. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ca69a7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Jeong JY, Kim MG, Ha TK, et al. Prognostic factors on overall survival in lymph node negative gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12:210–6. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.4.210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:101–12. doi: 10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Kajitani T. The general rules for the gastric cancer study in surgery and pathology. Part I. Clinical classification. Jpn J Surg. 1981;11:127–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02468883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Yoo MW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of T and N stages with endoscopy, stomach protocol CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography in early gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:20–7. doi: 10.1002/jso.21170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2009;12:6–22. doi: 10.1007/s10120-008-0492-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Hallinan JT, Venkatesh SK. Gastric carcinoma: Imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:212–27. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, et al. Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2005;103:2383–90. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Caletti G, Fusaroli P. The rediscovery of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in gastric cancer staging. Endoscopy. 2012;44:553–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1309770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Mocellin S, Marchet A, Nitti D. EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1122–34. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Filip M, Iordache S, Sâftoiu A. Gastric cancer staging by endoscopic ultrasound – Contrast enhancement and real-time elastography. Video J Encyclopedia GI Endosc. 2013;1:164–6. [Google Scholar]
13.Feng XY, Wang W, Luo GY, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and multislice spiral computed tomography for the preoperative staging of gastric cancer – Results of a single institution study of 610 Chinese patients. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN guidelines).Gastric Cancer (including cancer in the proximal 5 cm of the stomach) Version 2.2011. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2011 [Google Scholar]
15.Harris CL, Toloza EM, Klapman JB, et al. Minimally invasive mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: Emphasis on ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Cancer Control. 2014;21:15–20. doi: 10.1177/107327481402100103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Sharma M, Arya CL, Somasundaram A, et al. Techniques of linear endobronchial ultrasound imaging. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2010;17:177–87. doi: 10.1097/LBR.0b013e3181dca122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Sharma M, Chittapuram R, Rai P. Endosonography of the normal mediastinum: The Experts Approach. Video J Encyclopedia GI Endosc. 2013;1:56–9. [Google Scholar]
18.Sharma M, Rameshbabu CS, Mohan P. Standard techniques of imaging of IASLC borders by endoscopic ultrasound. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2011;18:99–110. doi: 10.1097/LBR.0b013e318207e6d5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.de Melo SW, Jr, Panjala C, Crespo S, et al. Interobserver agreement on the endosonographic features of lymph nodes in aerodigestive malignancies. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:3204–8. doi: 10.1007/s10620-011-1725-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Knabe M, Günter E, Ell C, et al. Can EUS elastography improve lymph node staging in esophageal cancer? Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1196–202. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2575-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Sharma M, Babu CS, Garg S, et al. Portal venous system and its tributaries: A radial endosonographic assessment. Endosc Ultrasound. 2012;1:96–107. doi: 10.7178/eus.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Rameshbabu CS, Wani ZA, Rai P, et al. Standard imaging techniques for assessment of portal venous system and its tributaries by linear endoscopic ultrasound: A pictorial essay. Endosc Ultrasound. 2013;2:16–34. doi: 10.7178/eus.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Desai G, Filly RA. Sonographic anatomy of the gastrohepatic ligament. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:87–93. doi: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.1.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Vikram R, Balachandran A, Bhosale PR, et al. Pancreas: Peritoneal reflections, ligamentous connections, and pathways of disease spread. Radiographics. 2009;29:e34. doi: 10.1148/rg.e34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Kimmey MB, Martin RW, Haggitt RC, et al. Histologic correlates of gastrointestinal ultrasound images. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:433–41. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(89)91568-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kutup A, Vashist YK, Groth S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound staging in gastric cancer: Does it help management decisions in the era of neoadjuvant treatment? Endoscopy. 2012;44:572–6. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1308950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Hassan H, Vilmann P, Sharma V. Impact of EUS-guided FNA on management of gastric carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:500–4. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.