Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2006
Is endoscopic ultrasound clinically useful for follow-up of gastric lymphoma?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Di Raimondo F, Caruso L, Bonanno G, Naso P, Chiarenza A, Fiumara P, Bari A, Palumbo G A, Russo A, Giustolisi R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered the best technique for locoregional staging at diagnosis but its role in the follow-up of patients with gastric lymphoma after organ-conserving strategies has not been established.
DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 23 patients with primary gastric lymphoma treated with a stomach-conservative approach. Sixteen of them were affected by MALT lymphoma and seven by diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Five patients were treated with Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication therapy alone (omeprazole + amoxicillin + clarithromycin); eight patients received a treatment including HP eradication and chemotherapy and the remaining 10 patients were treated with chemotherapy alone.
RESULTS: At the end of treatment, a complete remission was documented in 21 (91%) patients by endoscopy with biopsy (E-Bx) but in only seven (30%) patients by EUS. A total of 99 evaluations with both EUS and E-Bx were evaluated and we found concordance between the two methods in 33 occasions (33%) only. No significant difference on the percentage of concordance was recorded between MALT and DLBCL. After a median follow-up of 36.5 months we have not observed any relapse in 12 patients (six DLBCL and six MALT) with a persistent positive EUS but negative E-Bx.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the length of follow-up cannot exclude late relapse, we think that in restaging and follow-up of gastric lymphoma, EUS seems not to be a reliable tool if it is abnormal and E-Bx still remains the gold standard. Therefore, after conventional conservative treatment, persistence of EUS abnormality with a negative histology should not be considered as a clinically relevant persistence of disease and should not be a reason for further treatment.
DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 23 patients with primary gastric lymphoma treated with a stomach-conservative approach. Sixteen of them were affected by MALT lymphoma and seven by diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Five patients were treated with Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication therapy alone (omeprazole + amoxicillin + clarithromycin); eight patients received a treatment including HP eradication and chemotherapy and the remaining 10 patients were treated with chemotherapy alone.
RESULTS: At the end of treatment, a complete remission was documented in 21 (91%) patients by endoscopy with biopsy (E-Bx) but in only seven (30%) patients by EUS. A total of 99 evaluations with both EUS and E-Bx were evaluated and we found concordance between the two methods in 33 occasions (33%) only. No significant difference on the percentage of concordance was recorded between MALT and DLBCL. After a median follow-up of 36.5 months we have not observed any relapse in 12 patients (six DLBCL and six MALT) with a persistent positive EUS but negative E-Bx.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the length of follow-up cannot exclude late relapse, we think that in restaging and follow-up of gastric lymphoma, EUS seems not to be a reliable tool if it is abnormal and E-Bx still remains the gold standard. Therefore, after conventional conservative treatment, persistence of EUS abnormality with a negative histology should not be considered as a clinically relevant persistence of disease and should not be a reason for further treatment.