ABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the diffusion properties of brain metastases as imaging biomarkers in various types of tumours, to determine their histology and origin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were used to retrospectively study the data of 143 patients suffering from brain metastases. Four categories of primary tumours with metastases to the brain were included: lung carcinoma (n=102, 71.3%); breast carcinoma (n=27, 18.8%); colon carcinoma (n=8, 5.6%); and others (n=6, 4.2%). The Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADCmin ) values, as well as the normalised ADC ratio (nADC), were determined. The lesions on the DWI were categorised as follows: type 1, with negative findings on DWI; type 2, which were isointense with the normal cortical grey matter; type 3, which were hyperintense compared to the normal cortical grey matter. RESULTS: The diffusion type, mean ADCmin, and mean nADC showed statistically significant differences in different types of metastases. In the subgroup analysis, it was found that type 3 was the diffusion type found most extensively in the brain metastases of small cell carcinoma (SCLC) (n=52, 65.8%, p < 0.000). Furthermore, the mean ADCmin and nADC values were the least for the brain metastases of the SCLC (552.0 ± 134.2 and nADC = 0.8 ± 0.1, p < 0.000, respectively). The value of the mean ADCmin was low in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative groups than in the HER-2 positive groups at 786.8 ± 299.1 vs 844.8 ± 141.3 (p < 0.006). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that there is a correlation between diffusion parameters as imaging biomarkers of the solid component of brain metastases of primary tumours and the tumour histology.
Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms , Lung Neoplasms , Brain Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to present our initial experience in peritoneal carcinomatosis treatment and the technical details of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the light of current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data of 27 consecutive patients who were treated with CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis in Medical Park Samsun Hospital, between November 2012 and September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment indication and management were evaluated at the multidisciplinary oncology council. All patients underwent CRS and HIPEC with the aim of complete cytoreduction. Patients with unresectable disease and/or palliative surgery were excluded from analysis. Perioperative complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and HIPEC-related side effects were identified using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. Demographic, clinical and histopathological data of the patients were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age was 54 (32-72). Nineteen patients were female. The origin of peritoneal carcinomatosis was colorectal cancer in 12 patients, ovarian cancer in 12 patients, gastric cancer in 2 patients and pseudomyxoma peritonei in 1 patient. The mean Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index was 12 (3-32), with a mean operative time of 420 (300-660) minutes. Perioperative morbidity, HIPEC-related toxicity and perioperative mortality were observed in eight (30%), one (3.7%) and four patients (14.8%), respectively. During a mean follow up of 13 (1-22) months, overall and disease-free survival rates were 95.8% and 82.6%, respectively. Two patients with colorectal cancer (after 9 and 12 months) and one patient with ovarian cancer (after 11 months) had intra-abdominal recurrence. One patient with ovarian cancer had liver metastases 13 months after surgery, and underwent resection of segments 6-7. The remaining patients are being followed-up without any recurrence. CONCLUSION: Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC have favorable results in the treatment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Compatible with the literature, surgical outcomes of the presented series are encouraging for this treatment modality that have been recently popularized in our country. Careful perioperative evaluation, proper patient selection and multidisciplinary approach are essential for success in curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
