HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Paul E. Van Schil Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Schil, P. E. Articles by De Waele, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van Schil, P. E. Articles by De Waele, M. Related Collections Lung - cancer Mediastinum

Reviews

A second mediastinoscopy: how to decide and how to do it?

Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Received 16 September 2007; received in revised form 15 December 2007; accepted 16 January 2008.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650 Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium. Tel.: +32 3 8214360; fax: +32 3 8214396. (Email: paul.van.schil{at}uza.be).

Specific indications for a second or remediastinoscopy include an inadequate first procedure, metachronous second primary or recurrent lung cancer, lung cancer after unrelated disease, and restaging after induction therapy. Nowadays, restaging is the most frequent indication for remediastinoscopy. Only patients with proven mediastinal downstaging will benefit from a subsequent surgical resection. In contrast to imaging or functional studies, remediastinoscopy provides pathological evidence of response after induction therapy. Although technically more challenging than a first procedure, remediastinoscopy can select patients for subsequent thoracotomy and provides prognostic information. Technically, mediastinal dissection is usually started at the left paratracheal side to avoid the innominate artery. Under the aortic arch, dissection proceeds in the pretracheal plane until the subcarinal nodes are reached. Sensitivity of a second mediastinoscopy is lower than a first procedure but in the most recent series it is higher than 70% with an accuracy around 85%. Survival also depends on the findings of remediastinoscopy, patients with persisting mediastinal involvement having a poor prognosis. An alternative approach consists of the use of minimally invasive staging procedures as endobronchial or endoscopic esophageal ultrasound to obtain an initial proof of mediastinal nodal involvement. Mediastinoscopy is subsequently performed after induction therapy to evaluate response. In this way, a technically more difficult remediastinoscopy can be avoided.

Key Words: Lung cancer • Staging • Induction therapy • Mediastinoscopy • Restaging • Remediastinoscopy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. De Leyn and T. Lerut Reply to Van Schil and Stamatis Remediastinoscopy: a dangerous tool? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2008; 34(3): 708 - 709. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. I. Pass Lung Cancer Staging Techniques and Induction Therapy: Maybe Timing Is Everything J. Clin. Oncol., July 10, 2008; 26(20): 3306 - 3307. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. De Waele, M. Serra-Mitjans, J. Hendriks, P. Lauwers, J. Belda-Sanchis, P. Van Schil, and R. Rami-Porta Accuracy and survival of repeat mediastinoscopy after induction therapy for non-small cell lung cancer in a combined series of 104 patients Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2008; 33(5): 824 - 828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]