4.6 Article

Circulating tumour cells during laparoscopic and open surgery for primary colonic cancer in portal and peripheral blood

期刊

EJSO
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 942-950

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.12.003

关键词

Circulating tumour cells; Colorectal cancer; Laparoscopy; No-touch technique; Open surgery; Prognostic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of this study was to detect and quantify circulating tumour cells (CTC) in peripheral and portal blood of patients who had open or laparoscopic surgery for primary colonic cancer. Methods: Patients in the laparoscopic-group were operated on in a medial to lateral approach (vessels first), in the open-group a lateral to medial approach was applied. The enumeration of CTC was performed with the CellSearch System. Intra-operative samples were taken paired-wise (from peripheral and portal circulation) directly after entering the abdominal cavity (T1), after mobilisation of the tumour baring segment (T2), and after tumour resection (T3). Ploidy of both the CTC and tissue of the primary tumour was determined for chromosome 1, 7, 8 and 17. Results: Thirty-one patients were included; 18 patients had open surgery, 13 patients were operated on laparoscopically. The percentage of samples with CTC at T1 was 7% in peripheral blood and 54% in portal blood (p = 0.002). At T2, 4% and 31% respectively (p = 0.031). And at T3, 4% and 26% respectively (p = 0.125). The cumulative percentage of samples with CTC was significantly higher during open surgery as compared to the laparoscopic approach. Both the CTC and tissue of the primary tumour were diploid for chromosome 1, 7, 8 and 17. Conclusion: The detection rate and quantity of CTC is significantly increased intra-operatively and is significantly higher in portal blood compared to peripheral blood. Significantly less CTC were detected during laparoscopic surgery probably as result of the medial to lateral approach. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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