4.6 Article

Clinical study of harvesting lymph nodes with carbon nanoparticles in advanced gastric cancer: a prospective randomized trial

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0835-3

关键词

Carbon nanoparticles; Advanced gastric cancer; D2 gastrectomy; LN harvesting

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission Foundation [D141100000414002]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2012AA02A203-B01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) for harvesting lymph nodes (LNs) in cases of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods: Patients with previously untreated resectable AGC were eligible for inclusion in this study. All patients were randomly allocated to two subgroups. In the experimental group, 1.0 mL of CNP was injected into the subserosa of the stomach around the tumor before gastrectomy with D2 dissection. The same procedure was performed directly without any coloring material in the control arm. Following surgery, LNs were harvested, colored LNs were counted, and the diameters were measured by the investigator and pathologist. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled in the study. We observed no serious adverse effects related to CNP injection. The rate of stained LNs was 46.6 %. The mean number of harvested LNs was larger in the experimental than in the control group (38.33 vs 28.27, p = 0.041). A smaller diameter of LNs was recorded in the experimental arm (3.32 vs 4.30 mm, p = 0.023). In addition, we developed a model for predicting the total number of LNs based on the data from CNP-stained LNs and metastatic LNs (MLNs). Conclusions: CNP is a safe material. Surgeons could harvest more LNs in patients with AGC. The harvest of an increased number of smaller diameters of LNs may be beneficial. Further study is warranted to demonstrate the model's practicality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据