Esophageal carcinoma: esophageal ultrasound assessment of preoperative chemotherapy.

The effect of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma is difficult to assess because of the inadequacies of clinical staging. Endoscopic esophageal ultrasound (EUS) has been shown to be accurate in the clinical determination of depth of tumor invasion (T) and regional lymph node status (N). Therefore, EUS may be useful in assessing the effect of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Eleven patients with operable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction underwent staging by EUS before treatment. This was followed by two courses (10 patients) or one course (1 patient) of chemotherapy: etoposide, 120 mg/m2 for 3 days; doxorubicin hydrochloride, 20 mg/m2; and cisplatin, 100 mg/m2. Restaging by EUS was done after treatment. Ten patients then underwent resection of the tumor with lymphadenectomy. One patient was found to have metastatic disease at thoracotomy and did not undergo resection. However, tissue sampling was adequate for the determination of pathological stage. Independent pathological determinations of T and N were then obtained. On completion of chemotherapy, 9 patients (82%) had relief or reduction of preoperative symptoms, and 9 patients (82%) had either no evidence of tumor or reduction of tumor size by endoscopy. Despite this clinical and endoscopic response, no patient had EUS-documented and pathology-confirmed reduction of T. However, 2 patients had EUS-documented and pathology-confirmed progression of N. The accuracy of EUS in the determination of T was 82% and of N, 73%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Staging accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound based on pathologic analysis after minimally invasive esophagectomy

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a common staging modality used in patients with esophageal cancer. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the accuracy and sensitivity of EUS in determining the depth of penetration (T stage) and nodal status (N stage) in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). A retrospective analysis of all patients at a university hospital who underwent preoperative EUS followed by MIE for cancer was performed. We compared the results of preoperative EUS to final pathologic analyses of the esophageal specimen, examining the accuracy of EUS staging. Ninety-five patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE had preoperative EUS. Twenty-four of the 95 patients were excluded for lack of a repeat EUS after neoadjuvant therapy before resection. Hence, 71 patients were evaluated for the accuracy of EUS staging. The accuracy of EUS for T0 disease was 80 per cent; T1 disease was 75 per cent; T2 disease was 39 per cent; and T3 disease was 88 per cent. The overall EUS accuracy for T stage was 72 per cent with overstaging occurring mostly for pathologic T1 tumors in 18 per cent and understaging occurring mostly for pathologic T3 tumors in 11 per cent. The sensitivity and specificity for detection of nodal involvement were 79 per cent and 74 per cent, respectively. However the accuracy for T and N staging by EUS after neoadjuvant therapy decreased to 63 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound in the absence of neoadjuvant therapy is a relatively accurate and sensitive modality for determining the depth of tumor penetration and the presence of nodal disease in patients with esophageal carcinoma. The accuracy for T and N staging is less reliable after neoadjuvant therapy.     

Endoscopic Ultrasound with Conventional Probe and Miniprobe in Preoperative Staging of Esophageal Cancer

Background Using an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) miniprobe, even highly stenotic esophageal cancers precluding the passage of a conventional probe can be examined without prior dilatation. Objective To assess: (1) staging accuracy of conventional EUS probe and miniprobe, (2) variables influencing staging accuracy, (3) endoscopic features predicting tumor stage. Methods Ninety-seven consecutive patients with esophageal cancer undergoing complete surgical resection were included. Preoperative EUS was performed using a conventional probe in nonstenotic tumors and a miniprobe in stenotic tumors. Accuracy of EUS for T and N stages was compared to pathohistological staging. Results Overall EUS staging accuracy was 73.2% for T stage and 74.2% for N stage. It was similar for the miniprobe used in stenotic tumors vs the conventional probe used in nonstenotic tumors. Based on EUS, 84.5% of the patients would have been assigned to the appropriate therapy protocol (primary surgery vs neoadjuvant therapy). Endoscopic tumor features had no influence on staging accuracy. Tumor length >5 cm predicted advanced T and nodal positive stages. Conclusions The miniprobe allows adequate EUS staging of stenotic esophageal tumors precluding the passage of a conventional probe. Therefore, dilatation therapy of stenotic cancers to conduct conventional EUS should be avoided. R. Mennigen and D. Tuebergen contributed equally to this work Poster presentation during the Digestive Disease Week, Washington, DC, May 19–24, 2007.     

Endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and shortcomings of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer and its influence on treatment. METHODS: The series included 126 patients (65 men and 44 women) with gastric cancer who underwent EUS from July 1997 to June 2003 at the National University Hospital, Singapore. The final analysis included 109 patients ranging in age from 29 to 97 years (mean, 63.13 years). RESULTS: EUS staging for primary disease: Specimen histology was available for 102 of the 109 patients who underwent surgery. The accuracy was 79% for T1, 73.9% for T2, 85.7% for T3, and 72.7% for T4. The overall accuracy was 80.4%. EUS staging for nodes: The sensitivity of EUS for detecting nodal disease was 74.2% for N0, 78% for N1, 53.8% for N2, and 50% for N3. Overall, the N staging by EUS showed a sensitivity of 82.8%, a specificity of 74.2%, a positive predictive value of 85.4%, a negative predictive value of 70.2%, and an accuracy of 77.7%. Radical gastrectomy was proposed for 95 patients on the basis of the staging with EUS and computed tomography (CT) scan, and 87 patients (91.6%) underwent the surgery. Preoperative staging accurately predicted the operative strategy for 89% of the patients. No significant predictor for accuracy was achieved by performing a logistic regression analysis for the correct staging of T stage using EUS and adjusting for tumor location (middle part/distal third/whole stomach vs proximal/cardioesophageal) (p = 0.873), operator (p = 0.546), and subject's sequence (initial 50 vs last 50 cases) (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound is the most accurate and reliable method for the preoperative staging of gastric carcinomas, and it is mandatory if a tailored therapeutic approach is planned according to stage.     

Endoscopic ultrasound for preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is potentially the best method for pretreatment staging of esophageal carcinoma once distant metastases have been excluded by other methods. However, its apparent accuracy might be influenced by the use of neoadjuvant therapy. To determine the accuracy of EUS in patients undergoing esophageal resection, the authors reviewed their experience with EUS. Methods A total of 73 patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent an esophagectomy between April 2000 and February 2005 were examined using preoperative EUS and computed tomography (CT). Of these patients, 39 also underwent preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Both EUS and CT scan were used to determine the depth of tumor penetration (T-stage) and the presence of lymph node metastases (N-stage). These results then were compared with staging determined after pathologic examination of the resected surgical specimen. Results For patients not undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, T-stage was accurately determined by EUS in 79%, N-stage in 74%, and tumor node metastasis (TNM) classification in 65% of the cases. However, when patients who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included, the overall accuracy of EUS was 64% for T-stage, 63% for N-stage, and 53% for TNM classification. For the patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy, EUS indicated a more advanced T-stage in 49%, N-stage in 38%, and TNM classification in 51% of the cases, as compared with pathology. The overall accuracy of EUS for T- and N-stage carcinomas was superior to that of CT scanning. Conclusion For patients who do not undergo preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, EUS is a more accurate method for determining T- and N-stage resected esophageal carcinomas. Neoadjuvant therapy, however, results in apparent overstaging, predominantly because of tumor downstaging, and this reduces the apparent accuracy of EUS (and CT scanning) in this patient group. Nevertheless, EUS staging before neoadjuvant therapy could be more accurate than pathologic staging after treatment, thereby providing better initial staging information, which can be used to facilitate treatment.     

The examiner's learning effect and its influence on the quality of endoscopic ultrasonography in carcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia

Background: The preoperative diagnosis of tumors of the esophagus and the gastric cardia is an important element in their stage-oriented therapy. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of endosonographic ultrasound (EUS) and to test its usefulness in tumor staging and the assessment of operability. Methods: A total of 139 tumors were scanned via EUS by one examiner ≤14 days prior to resection (TNM staging per UICC, 1987). Results: The accuracy for completely traversable tumors was 60.8% for T1, 82.1% for T2, 77.5% for T3, and 33% for T4 stages. This accuracy was somewhat reduced in cases of nontraversable tumor stenosis (51.9%). In T staging, a significant case-dependent improvement in accuracy to 89.5% was found; this was regarded as a learning effect. In N staging, we considered only those tumors that were resected by the transthoracic approach with systematic node dissection and complete EUS (n= 80). N-stage accuracy (T1–T4) was 71.3%, and no improvement could be shown. To assess operability, discrimination between T1/T2 and T3/T4 tumors is crucial. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specifity can thus be improved significantly. Conclusions: The quality of EUS depends on the experience of the examiner. Reliable results can be obtained after >75 examinations have been done. EUS is a valuable tool in tumor staging when it is performed by an experienced examiner or under the direct supervision of such a person. Received: 28 April 1998/Accepted: 14 October 1998     

Endosonography in the preoperative evaluation of cancers of the esophagus

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the local and regional staging of esophageal cancer, and its possible alteration resulting from the performance of preoperative chemoradiation. METHODS: Prospective study of 85 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer evaluated by EUS and operated on between January 1992 and December 1995. 28 of these patients had received previous induction therapy. In all cases, EUS examination was performed by the same physician not informed about the results of previous morphological explorations. Histopathological analysis of all operative specimens was performed by the same pathologist, not informed about the results of EUS. Data were collected by another independent observer. RESULTS: EUS examination resulted in incomplete staging in 8 patients (9.5%) with severe stenosis precluding endoscope passage. The accuracy, specificity and sensitivity of EUS in detecting the depth of esophageal involvement (T0-2 vs. T3-4) were 82.3%, 78%, and 86% respectively, and 72%, 70%, and 73% respectively for lymph node metastasis. The overall accuracy of EUS in identifying the preoperative stage was 67%, with a clear-cut alteration when patients had received induction therapy (61% vs 72%). On the other hand, 7 (64%) of the 11 patients thought to have a complete response at endosonography had no residual tumor. CONCLUSION: EUS provides precise information for the preoperative identification of locally advanced esophageal tumor, even after induction therapy. The latter alters the diagnostic accuracy of EUS, although complete responders could be identified in two-thirds of cases.     

食管癌术前放化疗后临床再分期的评价

目的探讨食管癌患者术前放化疗（pre-CRT）后采用影像学和内镜检查进行临床再分期的临床价值。方法对27例局部晚期食管鳞癌患者,在接受CRT治疗前采用颈部和胸部及腹部CT、食管超声内镜（EUS）、电子气管镜及PET-CT等检查进行临床分期;完成pre-CRT后再次进行分期。临床疗效评价采用RECIST标准,放化疗后3～6周施行手术,将术后病理结果与术前分期进行对照研究。对常规病理学检测为pT0和pN0病例的组织切片,采用免疫组织化学（免疫组化）染色检测原发灶及淋巴结中的微小肿瘤残留灶。结果全组pre．CRT后,CT对T及N分期的准确率分别为40．9％（9／22）和68．2％（15／22）,总的分期准确率为40．9％（9／22）;EUS对T及N分期的准确率分别为38．5％（5／13）和69．2％（9／13）,总的分期准确率为38．5％（5／13）。联合CT和EUS总的分期准确率为46．2％（6／13）。CRT结束后临床评价完全缓解（CR）5例,部分缓解（PR）14例,无缓解（SD）8例。5例临床评价cR者术后病理证实3例CR,1例pT3N1,1例虽经苏木精．伊红染色为pT0N0,但经免疫组化检测发现淋巴结存在微小肿瘤病灶残留。而术后病理结果pCR的5例患者中,除3例术前评价为CR外。另2例术前临床评价为PR。在15例N0的病例中,免疫组化检测有2例3个淋巴结仍可见食管癌细胞分布于其周边。结论目前常用的临床检查分期手段（食管吞钡、CT、EUS、内镜下病理活检等）和临床疗效评价手段（RECIST标准）对食管癌放化疗后的肿瘤组织反应评价准确率不高。建议CRT后临床评价食管癌CR的患者。仍应接受手术治疗。     

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy—Results of a Multicenter Cohort Analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered a gold standard in the initial staging of esophageal cancer. There is an ongoing debate whether EUS is useful for tumor staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Methods

Ninety-five patients with esophageal cancer were retrospectively analyzed. In 45 patients, EUS was performed prior to and after NAC, while 50 patients had no induction therapy. Histological correlation through surgery was available. uT/uN classifications were compared to pT/pN stages. Statistical analysis included calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates. Agreement between endosonography and T staging was assessed with Cohen's kappa statistics.

Results

For those patients with prior NAC, overall accuracy of yuT and yuN classification was 29 and 62%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates for local tumor extension after NAC were as follows (%): T1: –/97/84, T2: 13/76/53, T3:86/29/46, T4:20/100/91, T1/2: 27/83/56, T3/4: 89/31/56. Cohen's kappa indicated poor agreement (kappa?=?0.129) between yuT classification and ypT stage. Relative to positive lymph node detection, sensitivity and specificity were 100 and 6%, respectively (kappa?=?0.06). T stage was overstaged in 23 (51%) and understaged in seven (16%) patients.

Conclusion

EUS is an unreliable tool for staging esophageal cancer after NAC. Overstaging of the T stage is common after NAC.     

Miniprobe endoscopic ultrasound accurately stages esophageal cancer and guides therapeutic decisions in the era of neoadjuvant therapy: results of a multicenter cohort analysis

Background

Despite recent advances in imaging techniques, adequate classification of esophageal lesions is still challenging. Accurate staging of tumors of the esophagus is a precondition for targeted therapy. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we report the role of high-frequency endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) catheter probes in pretherapeutic staging of esophageal neoplasms and thus guiding treatment decisions.

Methods

A total of 143 patients (mean age of 63.8 ± 10.7 years) with esophageal carcinoma were recruited from five German centers (Münster, Oldenburg, Hannover, Wiesbaden, and Lüneburg). Tumor type was adenocarcinoma in 112 (78 %) cases and squamous cell carcinoma in 31 (22 %). Tumor localization was as follows: proximal 3, mid esophagus 7, and distal third 133. Histological correlation either through EMR or surgery was available. In all patients, pretherapeutic uT and uN classifications were compared to pT/pN classification obtained from surgically (esophagectomy, n = 93) or endoscopically (EMR, n = 50) resected tissue.

Results

Overall, accuracy of uT classification was 60 % and of uN classification was 74 %. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates for local tumor extension were as follows (%): T1: 68/97/83; T2: 39/84/75; T3: 72/81/79; T4: 13/97/93; T1/2: 73/81/75; T3/4: 78/82/81. Relating to positive lymph node detection, sensitivity and specificity were 76 and 71 %, respectively.

Conclusions

Miniprobe EUS is an established method for the staging of esophageal tumors. Our large multicenter cohort shows a solid accuracy of miniprobe EUS with respect to differentiating locally advanced from limited cancer and assisting to determine the treatment regimen in the era of neoadjuvant therapy; consequently, 78 % of patients would have been assigned to the adequate therapeutic regimen, whereas 11 % of patients would have been overtreated and 11 % undertreated.     

Endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately assess pathologic stage of esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for initial staging of esophageal cancer is widely accepted. There is, however, considerable variability in the reported accuracy of EUS for restaging of esophageal neoplasms after neoadjuvant therapy. From June 1995 through December 1999, we prospectively studied a series of 26 patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer and were subsequently restaged by EUS before resection. Twenty-four patients had adenocarcinoma (92%), and two patients had squamous cell carcinoma (8%). EUS correctly predicted tumor stage in seven of 26 patients for an overall accuracy of 27 per cent. EUS overestimated the depth of tumor penetration in 18 patients (69%) and underestimated depth of penetration in one patient (4%). Lymph nodes were correctly staged in 15 of 26 patients for an overall accuracy of 58 per cent. Levels of sensitivity for detecting N0 and N1 disease were 44 per cent and 80 per cent respectively. Patients with a complete pathologic response were staged as T4N1 (one patient), T3N1 (three patients), T3N0 (one patient), and T2N1 (two patients). EUS cannot distinguish tumor involvement of the esophageal wall and lymph nodes from the postinflammatory changes that characterize effective neoadjuvant treatment. EUS is of limited utility in guiding clinical decision making after neoadjuvant therapy.     

Endoscopic ultrasound in routine clinical practice for staging adenocarcinomas of the stomach and distal esophagus]

PROBLEM: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important diagnostic tool for determining the best therapeutic strategy (primary resection, neoadjuvant therapy or palliation only) to offer esophageal or gastric cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present study (1992-2001),we evaluated the accuracy of EUS in adenocarcinomas of the distal esophagus and stomach and compared our results with pathologists findings as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients studied, the precise examination of 11% EUS was not completely possible due to severe tumor stenosis. The accuracy of EUS with respect to T, N+/- and TN+/- amounted to 51%, 65% and 34% in 131 patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophageal gastric junction and to 50%, 66% and 37% in 91 patients with adenocarcinomas located in the fundus, corpus or antrum of the stomach respectively. With respect to T-stage, the overstaging of tumors was more common than understaging, especially in pT2b-carcinomas. The subgroup analysis of the 131 EGJ adenocarcinoma patients showed that the results obtained by EUS were slightly better in type I (distal esophageal cancer) than in type II and III cardia carcinomas (proximal gastric cancer).When comparing two observation periods (1992-1996 and 1997-2001), the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging was very similar in both periods for T-category (51% vs 49%) and N-category (63% vs 64%) as well as for combined TN-staging (36% vs 35%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical routine examinations of adenocarcinomas of the stomach and the distal esophagus, the accuracy of EUS is not as good as the excellent results in the past--mostly obtained under study conditions--may suggest.     

Prospective Analysis of Accuracy of Positron Emission Tomography,Computed Tomography,and Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Staging of Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and the Esophagogastric Junction

Background: Exact preoperative staging of esophageal cancer is essential for accurate prognosis and selection of appropriate treatment modalities.Methods: Forty-two patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or the esophagogastric junction suitable for radical esophageal resection were staged with positron emission tomography (PET), spiral computed tomography (CT), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).Results: Diagnostic sensitivity for the primary tumor was 83% for PET and 67% for CT; for local peritumoral lymph node metastasis, it was 37% for PET and 89% for EUS; and for distant metastasis, it was 47% for PET and 33% for CT. Diagnostic specificity for local lymph node metastasis was 100% with PET and 54% with EUS, and for distant metastasis, it was 89% for PET and 96% for CT. Accuracy for locoregional lymph node metastasis was 63% for PET, 66% for CT, and 75% for EUS, and for distant metastasis, it was 74% with PET and 74% with CT. Of the 10 patients who were considered inoperable during surgery, PET identified 7 and CT 4. The false-negative diagnoses of stage IV disease in PET were peritoneal carcinomatosis in two patients, abdominal para-aortic cancer growth in one, metastatic lymph nodes by the celiac artery in four, and metastases in the pancreas in one. PET showed false-positive lymph nodes at the jugulum in three patients.Conclusions: The diagnostic value of PET in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction is limited because of low accuracy in staging of paratumoral and distant lymph nodes. PET does, however, seem to detect organ metastases better than CT.     

Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and the Esophagogastric Junction: Positron Emission Tomography Improves Staging and Prediction of Survival in Distant but Not in Locoregional Disease

In adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for prognostication and treatment allocation, one prerequisite is accurate pretreatment staging. This staging, we hypothesized, would be improved by the use of positron emission tomography (PET). After 55 patients suitable for radical esophageal resection were staged with PET, spiral computed tomography (CT), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), results were compared with histopathology and with survival. Accuracy in detecting locoregional lymph node metastasis did not differ significantly between EUS (72%), PET (60%), and CT (58%). Adding PET to standard staging failed to improve the accuracy of N staging (P = 0.250). In M staging, accuracy between CT (75%) and PET (76%) did not differ. The accuracy of combined studies of CT and PET and of EUS, CT, and PET were 87% (P = 0.016 versus CT) and 91% (P = 0.031 versus EUS and CT), respectively. Of the 55 patients, 19 (35%) had metastatic lesions. By combined use of CT and EUS and by combined use of CT, EUS, and PET, 8 and 14 (P = 0.031), respectively, could be detected. In nodal disease without distant metastases, PET did not improve the prediction of survival. However, positive PET for distant metastasis by either positive EUS or CT predicts well the poor survival of these patients. The staging value of PET by itself in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is limited because of low accuracy for nodal and the lack of specificity for distant disease prognosis. Adding PET to standard staging does, however, improve detection of stage IV disease and its associated poor survival. Presented at the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 15–19, 2004 (poster presentation).     

Endoscopic Ultrasonography of the Esophagus

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a generally accepted technique for the preoperative staging of malignant tumors in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts. In particular, EUS has been considered the method of choice in diagnosing esophageal carcinoma due to the relative ease in performing the examination and the accuracy of staging based on high-resolution ultrasonic imaging from within the lumen of the esophagus. This comprehensive review covers currently available EUS instruments, image characteristics of esophageal carcinoma, and images by the recently introduced miniprobe scanner. The role of the method in diagnosing superficial esophageal carcinoma and the possible treatment by endoscopic mucosal resection of this particular disease entity are discussed.     

Clinical staging of esophageal carcinoma. CT, EUS, and PET

CT is readily available to all patients. It is relatively inexpensive and fees are usually reimbursed. It provides exquisite anatomic detail of the chest and abdomen in patients with esophageal cancer. The only reliable use of CT in the determination of T is the exclusion of T4 tumors, which is suggested by the preservation of fat planes. Enlarged lymph nodes are suspicious for metastatic disease but require further study or tissue sampling if nodal metastases will determine treatment. Its major use is in the detection of distant metastatic disease; however, 30% to 60% of distant metastases may be radiographically occult. There is a significant learning curve for EUS staging of esophageal cancer. It is suggested that this study be performed at institutions where there is a dedicated, experienced endoscopic ultrasonographer with adequate instrumentation that allows specialty imaging and EUS-FNA. EUS is the best means of clinically determining T. The addition of EUS-FNA to routine EUS evaluation of lymph nodes allows an accuracy similar to the EUS determination of T. EUS has no purpose in assessment of non-nodal distant metastatic disease; however, the serendipitous finding of distant metastases in adjacent structures visualized during the evaluation of the primary tumor and lymph nodes has, on occasion, detected M1b disease. FDG-PET represents an advance over CT scanning in the screening for distant metastases. The major problems with FDG-PET staging of esophageal cancer is failure to detect metastatic deposits less than 1 cm in diameter and lack of anatomic definition. It is unable to determine T and has been inaccurate in the detection of lymph node metastases. Because this test is not readily available, is expensive, and is not routinely reimbursed, its use in staging esophageal cancer continues to be limited. Today, CT and EUS are the mainstays in the clinical staging of esophageal carcinoma. When possible, FDG-PET should be added to CT to improve the evaluation of non-nodal M1b disease. Results of these studies should determine the necessity for invasive staging techniques and direct their use.     

食管癌与贲门癌患者术前内镜超声检查28例分析

目的 通过对比内镜超声及CT在食管癌、贲门癌术前进行T、N分期中的准确度,评价内镜超声的临床应用价值. 方法 对28例食管癌、贲门患者术前均行内镜超声扫描和CT扫描,并分别进行T、N分期,以术后病理为金标准,比较两者分期的准确性有无差异,同时对比两者对淋巴结转移的准确率(即真实性)的差异,判断内镜超声的应用价值. 结果 本组28例病例中,T分期准确率内镜超声为89.3%(25/28),高于CT的46.4%(13/28),差异有统计学意义(P=0.004,P＜0.01).N分期中,内镜超声与CT的准确率分别为82.1%(23/28)及50.0%(14/28),差异有统计学意义(P=0.035,P＜0.05).对转移淋巴结的分组统计中,内镜超声与CT的准确率分别为88.7%及72.2%,有显著性差异(χ2=7.031,P=0.008,P＜0.01).结论 内镜超声在食管癌、贲门癌术前分期中有重要作用,其T分期准确率明显高于传统CT扫描.以淋巴结短径、S/L(淋巴结短径/淋巴结长径)并结合淋巴结的超声显像特征进行分析,提高了判断淋巴结转移以及N分期的准确性.     

Esophageal ultrasound and the preoperative staging of carcinoma of the esophagus

Esophageal ultrasound allows the esophageal wall to be viewed as five discrete layers. Lymph nodes are easily identified, and their size, shape, margin, and internal structure can be assessed. This provides an alternative method of preoperative (clinical) evaluation of the primary tumor [T] and the regional lymph nodes [N] of patients with carcinoma of the esophagus. Esophageal ultrasound was attempted in the clinical staging of 28 patients with carcinoma of the esophagus. Six patients (21%) were not assessed because of the inability to pass the esophageal ultrasound probe through the malignant stricture. The staging system for carcinoma of the esophagus developed by the International Union Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer was used. Twenty-two patients had the true T determined by pathologic review of the resected esophagus. Esophageal ultrasound correctly identified T in 13 patients (59% accuracy). In four patients (18%) the disease was overstaged by esophageal ultrasound; all these patients had early T1 tumors confined to the submucosa. In five patients (23%) the disease was understaged by esophageal ultrasound; all of these patients had advanced tumors (four T3 and one T4) that invaded beyond the esophageal wall. Seven of the nine incorrect esophageal ultrasound determinations were called T2 (three T1, three T3, one T4), which suggests that the borders of the muscularis propria require careful attention when evaluated by esophageal ultrasound. Twenty patients had the true N determined by pathologic review of the resected specimen. Esophageal ultrasound correctly identified N in 14 patients (70% accuracy). Three patients were falsely identified as having N1 disease and three were falsely identified as having N0 disease. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for N assessment by esophageal ultrasound were 70%. Esophageal ultrasound provides an alternative method of visualization of the esophageal wall and regional lymph nodes. Our early experience shows promise for esophageal ultrasound in the clinical staging of carcinoma of the esophagus.     

食管腔内超声在食管癌患者中的应用

目的研究经食管探头超声仪（ＴＥＥＰ）在食管癌诊断和治疗中的应用价值。方法１９９６年９月至１９９７年８月,３２例食管癌患者术前进行上消化道钡餐、纤维胃镜和ＴＥＥＰ等检查。其中７例患者术前予以ＣＴ扫描检查。所有患者切除的标本,包括淋巴结,均送病理检查,并将术前ＴＥＥＰ和ＣＴ检查情况与术中、术后病理结果进行对比分析。结果纤维胃镜、ＴＥＥＰ和病理所测的肿瘤长度分别为４５２４±１８０６ｃｍ（ｘ±ｓ）、５２６９±１９１６ｃｍ（ｘ±ｓ）和５３４５±１９０１ｃｍ（ｘ±ｓ）。纤维胃镜测的肿瘤长度与病理结果比较,差异有显著性意义（Ｐ＜００５）,而ＴＥＥＰ测的肿瘤长度与病理结果比较,差异无显著性意义（Ｐ＞００５）。ＴＥＥＰ术前Ｔ、Ｎ分期的准确率分别为８０６％（２５／３１）和７７３％（３３／４４）,而ＣＴ术前Ｔ分期的准确率仅为４２９％（３／７）。结论对于食管癌的术前ＴＮ分期,ＴＥＥＰ是一项可靠的检查手段。ＴＥＥＰ比ＣＴ准确。在测量食管癌肿瘤长度时,ＴＥＥＰ比胃镜精确。该检查手段安全,在我们的临床应用中,未出现任何并发症。     

Section III: endoscopic and other staging techniques

Accurate staging of esophageal cancer is important as disease survival closely correlates with TNM stage. The optimal management of patients with esophageal cancer utilizes stage-dependent algorithms. The primary diagnosis of esophageal cancer is established by upper endoscopy and biopsy. Computed tomography (CT) is typically the next test performed and is most valuable at detecting metastatic (M) distant disease, particularly in the liver, lungs, and bone. Positron emission tomography (PET) scanning with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose also is useful in detecting distant disease. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) combines endoscopy with high-frequency ultrasonography to obtain detailed images of the tumor and surrounding structures. EUS is the most accurate technique for the locoregional (T and N) staging of esophageal cancer. The recent availability of EUS-directed fine needle aspiration (FNA) has allowed a tissue diagnosis of lymph nodes both periesophageal and in the celiac axis. EUS-FNA can also sample liver metastases. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques can also be used to sample thoracic and celiac axis lymph nodes. Optimal staging strategies for esophageal cancer combine EUS FNA with either CT or PET scans.