Tumor microenvironment (TME) plays an integral part in the biology of cancer, participating in tumor initiation, progression, and response to therapy. Exosome is an important part of TME. Exosomes are small vesicles formed in vesicular bodies with a diameter of 30–100 nm and a classic “cup” or “dish” morphology. They can contain microRNAs, mRNAs, DNA fragments and proteins, which are shuttled from a donor cell to recipient cells. Exosomes secreted from tumor cells are called tumor-derived (TD) exosomes. There is emerging evidence that TD exosomes can construct a fertile environment to support tumor proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion and premetastatic niche preparation. TD exosomes also may facilitate tumor growth and metastasis by inhibiting immune surveillance and by increasing chemoresistance via removal of chemotherapeutic drugs. Therefore, TD-exosomes might be potential targets for therapeutic interventions via their modification or removal. For example, exosomes can serve as specific delivery vehicles to tumors of drugs, small molecules, or agents of prevention and gene therapy. Furthermore, the biomarkers detected in exosomes of biological fluids imply a potential for exosomes in the early detection and diagnosis, prediction of therapeutic efficacy, and determining prognosis of cancer. Although exosomes may serve as cancer biomarkers and aid in the treatment of cancer, we have a long way to go before we can further enhance the anti-tumor therapy of exosomes and develop exosome-based cancer diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer are operation contraindications. Systematic review to provide an overview of imaging in predicting the status of liver and peritoneum pre-therapeuticly is essential.

Background: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is one of the most common forms of metastasis with a very poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer (GC). The mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of PM remain controversial. Main body: Stephen Paget’s “seed-and-soil” hypothesis gives us an illustration of the mechanisms of PM. Recently, hematogenous metastasis and exosomes from GC are identified as novel mechanisms for PM. Diagnostic accuracy of conventional imaging modalities for PM is not satisfactory, but texture analysis may be a useful adjunct for the prediction of PM. Biological markers in peritoneal washings are helpful in identifying patients at high risk of PM, but many limitations remain to be overcome. Response of PM from systemic chemotherapy alone is very limited. However, conversion therapy is confirmed to be safe and able to prolong the survival of GC patients with PM. As an important part of conversion therapy, intraperitoneal chemotherapy with taxanes has become an ideal approach with several advantages. Additionally, gastrectomy should be considered in patients who would tolerate surgery if a remarkable response to chemotherapy was observed. Conclusion: Texture analysis is a reliable adjunct for the prediction of PM, and conversion therapy provides a new choice for GC patients with PM. The underlying mechanisms and new biological markers for GC patients with PM should be the direction of future studies. Furthermore, significant aspects of conversion therapy, such as timing and method of the operation, and the indications remain to be clarified.

Background: Despite genetic polymorphism in response to platinum/5-Fu chemotherapy in gastric cancer (GC) has been studied, data reported so far are conflicting and critical consideration is needed before translation to the treatment of GC. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis by using 20 eligible studies to examine polymorphisms of ERCC1, GSTs, TS and MTHFR in predicting clinical outcomes (response rate, overall survival and toxicity) of GC patients treated with platinum/5-Fu-based chemotherapy. The association was measured using random/fixed effect odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) combined with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to the studies’ heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed with the software STATA 9.0 package. Results: No significant association was found between response rate and genetic polymorphism in TS, MTHFR, ERCC1, GSTM1 and GSTP1. However, response rate was higher in GSTT1 (+) genotype compared with GSTT1 (−) genotype (T-/T+: OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.47–0.97). With regard to long term outcomes, we could observe a significant longer overall survival in TS 3R/3R [(2R2R+2R3R)/3R3R: HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.02–1.64] and GSTP1 GG/GA [(GG+AG)/AA: HR=0.51, 95% CI: (0.39, 0.67)] genotypes. In addition, significant association was demonstrated between toxicity and genetic polymorphism in TS, MTHFR and GSTP1 in included studies. Conclusion: Polymorphisms of ERCC1, GSTs, TS and MTHFR were closely associated with clinical outcomes of GC patients treated with platinum/5-Fu-based chemotherapy. Studies with large sample size using the method of multi-variant analyses may help us to give more persuasive data on the putative association in future.