Preoperative lymph-node staging in gastrointestinal cancer--correlation between size and XXXX stage.

@entity1 @entity5 @entity4056 @entity189 @entity3 @entity694 @entity413
Our data suggest that lymph-node size is not a reliable indicator for lymph-node @entity3 in gastric, esophageal, and @entity694 . Despite a significant difference in diameter of metastatic and non-metastatic nodes, the accurate evaluation of lymph-node @entity3 in @entity4056 cannot be determined by nodal size, because the majority of counted lymph nodes is ?5 mm and the frequency of small lymph-node @entity3 is high. Therefore imaging techniques using the size as criterion of nodal infiltration can not exactly assess the nodal status of @entity1 with @entity4056 . For rational lymphadenectomy, the value of sentinel node biopsy in @entity5 is now discussed. At the moment it is too early to apply sentinel node biopsy in order to reduce the extent of lymphadenectomy in these @entity189 [11]. Recent interest has focused on PET scanning in the detection of lymph-node @entity3 . PET represents a potentially ideal imaging modality for @entity5 . It allows a quick and simultaneous assessment of both local and distant sites and, as a result of avid uptake of the @entity413 moiety, may potentially identify small @entity5 loads. There are only limited experience in detecting lymph-node @entity3 in @entity4056 and the results of the published reports are controversially discussed [12, 13]. Our data demonstrate a high frequency of small lymph-node @entity3 in @entity4056 and suggest that a careful histological search for small lymph-node @entity3 should be undertaken to avoid false-negative lymph-node staging. These results emphasize that a reliable pathological @entity5 must be based on a standardized systematic lymphadenectomy because lymph-node sampling based on lymph-node size is not sufficient.
