Objectives: To investigate gastric lavage (GL) cytopathology and immunometric analysis as novel clinicopathologic and prognostic parameters for gastric cancer (GC). Study Design: In 38 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, we performed a cytopathologic analysis and an immunometric assay of GL using four tumor markers (CEA, CA 19.9, CA 72.4, and CA 50). The intragastric tumor marker levels were compared with a control group consisting of 41 non-GC patients to determine a statistically significant cutoff value. Results: GL cytopathology demonstrated the presence of cancer cells in 13 (34.2%) of the 38 GC patients: such a finding correlated to the parameters pT and pN with a statistically significant validity (p < 0.0267 and p < 0.0306, respectively). Measurement of intragastric CA 19.9 and CA 50 attained a statistically significant cutoff value (p < 0.002 and p < 0.0096, respectively), which was invalidated by the low sensitivity of the ROC curve analysis. Conclusions: In contrast to determination of its tumor markers, GL cytopathology correlated well with pT and pN staging parameters. Should this and other features be corroborated by future studies, the GL cytology test could be routinely used to detect aggressive types of GC even at early stages and result in important progress in the knowledge, staging, prediction, as well as management and follow-up of this inauspicious type of cancer.

Keywords:
Gastric cancer, Gastric cytology, Gastric lavage, Intragastric tumor markers
1.
Shah MA: Update on metastatic gastric and esophageal cancers. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1760-1769.
2.
Kuo CY, Chao Y, Li CP: Update on treatment of gastric cancer. J Chin Med Assoc 2014;77:345-353.
3.
Elimova E, Shiozaki H, Wadhwa R, et al: Medical management of gastric cancer: a 2014 update. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:13637-13647.
4.
Verace V: Evaluation of the cytological examination of the gastric juice in diagnosis of carcinoma of the stomach (in Italian). Minerva Chir 1959;14:1563-1567.
5.
Palmer WL, Rubin CE: Exfoliative cytology of the digestive tract. Am J Med 1953;15:439-441.
6.
Rosenthal M, Traut HF: The mucolytic action of papain for cell concentration in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Cancer 1951;4:147-149.
7.
Traut HF, Rosenthal M, Harrison JT, et al: Evaluation of cytologic diagnosis of gastric cancer. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1952;95:709-716.
8.
Papanicolaou GN: The cell smear method of diagnosing cancer. Am J Publ Health Nations Health 1948;38:202-205.
9.
Tatsuta M, Itoh T, Okuda S, et al: Carcinoembryonic antigen in gastric juice as an aid in diagnosis of early gastric cancer. Cancer 1980;46:2686-2692.
10.
Borch K, Renvall H, Lundin C, et al: Evaluation of gastric CEA analysis as an aid during screening for gastric neoplasia in atrophic gastritis. Gut 1987;28:26-32.
11.
Tatsuta M, Iishi H, Yamamura H, Okuda S: Value of gastric juice carcinoembryonic antigen in identifying high-risk patients for gastric cancer. Oncology 1988;45:30-34.
12.
Farinati F, Nitti D, Cardin F, et al: CA 19-9 determination in gastric juice: role in identifying gastric cancer and high risk patients. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1988;24:923-927.
13.
Tocchi A, Costa G, Lepre L, et al: The role of serum and gastric juice levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19.9 and CA 72.4 in patients with gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1998;124:450-455.
14.
Duraker N, Naci Celik A, Gençler N: The prognostic significance of gastric juice CA 19-9 and CEA levels in gastric carcinoma patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002;28:844-849.
15.
Muretto P, Graziano F, Staccioli MP, et al: An endoscopic capsule for measuring tumor markers in gastric juice: an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a new diagnostic tool. Ann Oncol 2003;14:105-109.
16.
Farinati F, Holmgren J, Di Mario F, et al: CA 50 determination in body fluids: can we screen patients at risk for gastric cancer? Int J Cancer 1991;47:7-11.
17.
Homma Y, Ushida S, Yamada M, et al: Positive peritoneal washing cytology in multiple cavities can predict poor prognosis of advanced gastric cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:455-460.
18.
Morreno-Otero R, Marròn C, Cantero J, et al: Endoscopic biopsy and cytology in the diagnosis of malignant gastric ulcers. Diagn Cytopathol 1989;5:366-370.
19.
Morreno-Otero R, Martinez-Raposo A, Cantero J, et al: Exfoliative cytodiagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma. Comparison with biopsy and endoscopy. Acta Cytol 1983;27:485-488.
20.
Fujimoto S, Kitsukawa Y, Itoh K: CEA in gastric juice or feces as an aid in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Surg 1979;189:34-38.
21.
Maehara Y, Kusumuto T, Takahashi I, et al: Predictive value of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels for the prognosis of patients with well-differentiated gastric cancer. A multivariate analysis. Oncology 1994;51:234-237.
22.
Hamazoe R, Maeta M, Matsui T, et al: CA 72-4 compared with carcinoembryonic antigen as a tumor marker for gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28:1351-1354.
23.
Tamada R, Hiramoto Y, Tsujitani S, et al: Serum CEA levels facilitate detection or recurrences of cancer in patients after gastrectomy. Jpn J Surg 1985;15:23-29.
24.
Morson BC, Sobin LH, Grundmann E, et al: Precancerous conditions and epithelial dysplasia in the stomach. Clin Pathol 1980;33:711-721.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.