PubMed · 13931082
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A A LIZARRAGA, I LUPIS, J V RODRIGUEZ, A GONZALEZ CALDERON. 1963-05-27. [Appendicular carcinoid].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13931082/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: Response to photodynamic therapy depends on adequate tumor oxygenation as well as sufficient accumulation of photosensitizer in the tumor. The goal of this study was to investigate the presence of hypoxia and retention of the photosensitizer Photofrin in the tumors of patients with intra-abdominal carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor nodules from 10 patients were studied. In nine of these patients, hypoxia was identified in histological sections of biopsied tumor after administration of the hypoxia marker 2-(2-nitroimidazol-1[H]-yl)-N-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropyl)acetamide (EF5). In separate tumor nodules from 10 patients, Photofrin uptake was measured by fluorescence after tissue solubilization. RESULTS: Hypoxia existed in the tumors of five patients, with three of these patients demonstrating at least one severely hypoxic nodule. Physiological levels of oxygen were present in the tumors of four patients. An association between tumor size and hypoxia was not evident because some tumor nodules as small as approximately 2 mm in diameter were severely hypoxic. However, even these tumor nodules contained vascular networks. Three patients with severely hypoxic tumor nodules exhibited moderate levels of Photofrin uptake of 3.9 +/- 0.4 to 3.9 +/- 0.5 ng/mg (mean +/- SE). The four patients with tumors of physiological oxygenation did not consistently exhibit high tumor concentrations of Photofrin: mean +/- SE drug uptake among these patients ranged from 0.6 +/- 0.8 to 5.8 +/- 0.5 ng/mg. CONCLUSIONS: Carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis of the i.p. cavity may exhibit severe tumor hypoxia. Photofrin accumulation in tumors varied by a factor of approximately 10x among all patients, and, on average, those with severe hypoxia in at least one nodule did not demonstrate poor Photofrin uptake in separate tumor samples. These data emphasize the need for reconsideration of the generally accepted paradigm of small tumor size, good oxygenation, and good drug delivery because this may vary on an individual tumor basis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In patients with colorectal cancer, it is important to diagnose peritoneal carcinomatosis as well as to detect location and size of peritoneal tumor dissemination in view of treatment planning. The aim of this study was to investigate the detection accuracy of computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Preoperative CT-scans from 25 consecutive patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin were independently blindly reviewed by 2 radiologists. The presence and diameter of tumor deposits were noted in seven abdominopelvic areas. Intraoperative findings were regarded as the gold standard. Agreement was assessed using the Kappa index and the chi-square test. RESULTS: The presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis was detected in 60 and 76% of those patients by each of the radiologist. Detection of individual peritoneal implants was poor (kappa = 0.11/0.23) and varied from 9.1%/24.3% for tumor size <1 cm to 59.3%/66.7% for tumor size >5 cm. Overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for tumor involvement per area were 24.5%/37.3%, 94.5%/90.4%, 53.0%/60.0%, 86.2%/84.4%, and 47.3%/50.8%, respectively. Accuracy of tumor detection varied widely per anatomic site. Statistically significant interobserver differences were noted, specifically for tumor size of 1-5 cm (P = 0.007) and localization on mesentery and small bowel (kappa = 0.30, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal cancer, CT detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis is moderate and of individual peritoneal tumor deposits poor. Interobserver differences are statistically significant. Therefore, preoperative CT seems not to be a reliable tool for detection of presence, size, and location of peritoneal tumor implants in view of treatment planning in patients with colorectal cancer.
Melanomas of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are very rare, and their primary or secondary nature is often difficult to establish. We report the case of a 55-year-old Caucasian female who presented with an appendiceal melanoma. To our knowledge, appendiceal localization of melanoma has never been reported. We review the literature and discuss the issues relating to the origin of gastrointestinal melanomas. In conclusion, even if a primary site of melanoma was not evident in this case, the metastatic nature of this appendiceal melanoma cannot be completely ruled out.