Excessive Expectations for Carcinoembryonic Antigen Targeted Fluorescent‐guided Surgery for Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Colorectal, Pancreatic, and Gastric Cancer

Zhanwu Jiang,Lin Sun,Wei-Zhen Yang,Jin Li,Jiankai Shen,Meifeng He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25318

2018-01-01

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:To the Editor We read with great interest the recent article entitled “Fluorescent‐ guided surgery for sentinel lymph node detection in gastric cancer and carcinoembryonic antigen targeted fluorescent‐guided surgery in colorectal and pancreatic cancer” by Vuijk et al. This study foresaw a bright future for tumor‐specific imaging and staging strategy. The rationale for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) targeted imaging lies in (a) CEA highly expressed on tumour types and it was unaffected by neoadjuvant therapy, (b) anti‐CEA chimerized monoclonal antibody conjugated fluorochrome outperformed normal fluorescent reagents by molecular structure and diagnostic efficiency, and (c) safe tolerability and pharmacokinetics. The author overviewed preclinical and clinical studies and emphasized that the CEA targeted fluorescence were able to demarcate tumor nodules that could not be visualized in conventional bright light surgery. However, a very high tumor‐to‐background ratio measured ex vivo vs in vivo, and a certain extent of autofluorescence and background scattering previously described in fluorescence imaging studies potentially hinted a need for more sensitive intraoperative imaging systems. For colorectal cancer: Serum CEA levels were reported to be inadequate for rectal cancer patient selection because of a lack of correlation between tumor CEA expression and serum CEA levels. Preoperative cT staging assessment has always been a suitable and valid standard of patient selection. For pancreatic cancer: Disadvantageous CEA loss expression after neoadjuvant treatment was seen in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Serum CEA levels seem to be accurate to predict CEA tumor expression for fluorescence imaging surgery and posthospital follow up without a history of neoadjuvant treatment. For gastric cancer: Complicated lymphatic drainage and completely obliterated lymph channels (or nodes) have always been challenging for fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green (ICG) or ICG:NanoColl, underlining an urgent need for tumor‐specific fluorescent tracers for gastric cancer. The author foresaw a bright future for tumor‐specific imaging for gastric cancer. Whereas, the author was not sure if there exists a tumor‐targeted reagent that will wondrously outmatch pathological detection. In addition, what we especially want to propose is that a fluorescence imaging is just a macroscopic optical imaging, although it is combined with tumor‐specific regents in molecular level. To date, pathological testing remains a gold reference to discriminate cytological malignancy. Pathology molecular diagnostic techniques, such as reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction and one‐step nucleic acid amplification, have emerged as rapid, real‐time, and sensitive tools to detect lymph node micrometastasis. However, the time required to obtain results is still too long for use in the intraoperative diagnosis, and more studies are needed to improve these molecular tools. Therefore, future perspectives and expectations should look forward to tumor specific fluorescence imaging and these evolving and innovative pathological diagnosis techniques as well.