Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study demonstrates superior sensitivity of quantitative RT-PCR over cytology in gastric carcinoma, indicating better peritoneal recurrence risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection of free cancer cells in the peritoneal washes as a prognostic indicator for patients with gastric carcinoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Peritoneal lavage cytology (CY) is an excellent prognostic determinant but lacks sensitivity. This can be improved by using RT-PCR to quantitate carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) mRNA in peritoneal washes. METHODS: Peritoneal washes were obtained from 189 patients with gastric carcinoma during laparotomy. CEA mRNA levels and CEA/GAPDH mRNA ratios were quantified using a real-time PCR system with fluorescent hybridization probes. Receiver-operating characteristic plots were used to determine which of these parameters should be used as a marker for the intraperitoneal cancer cells. The prognostic significance of its positivity was then evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves, and its value as an independent prognostic factor was evaluated by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of real-time RT-PCR with an optimal cutoff value were 80% and 94%; those for conventional cytology were 56% and 91%. The survival of 16 patients who were CY-PCR+ was poor and approached that of 35 CY+ patients. Recurrence as peritoneal carcinomatosis was frequent among PCR+ patients but rare for their PCR- counterparts. PCR+ was a significant independent prognostic factor, along with the presence of node metastasis and serosal invasion, but CY+ was not. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative RT-PCR of peritoneal washes can replace cytologic examination as a tool for the sensitive evaluation of the risk of intraperitoneal recurrence in patients with gastric carcinoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodera et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: