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。     

腔内超声与螺旋CT对直肠癌术前分期的对比研究

目的比较腔内超声（EUS）和螺旋CT（SCT）对直肠癌术前分期的诊断价值。方法对68例直肠癌患者术前行EUS和SCT检查，将检查结果与手术及病理结果对比；同时比较EUS和SCT对诊断直肠肿瘤浸润深度、区域淋巴结转移的准确性。结果判断T分期，EUS准确率为86．8％（59／68），SCT准确率为70．6％（48／68），两者比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。评价N分期，EUS的准确率为67．6％（46／68），SCT的准确率为63．2％（43／68），两者比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论EUS对判断直肠肿瘤浸润深度优于SCT，但两者对淋巴结转移的判断均存在一定的局限性。     

64层CT三期动态增强扫描对胃癌术前TNM分期的判断价值

目的探讨64层螺旋CT三二期动态增强扫描对胃癌进行术前TNM分期的临床价值．方法回顾性分析2009年5月至2011年5月赣南医学院第一附属医院收治的120例胃癌患者的术前64层螺旋CT三期动态增强扫描资料和术后病理资料,由两名高年资影像科医生采用双盲法进行术前影像学分期。结果术前64层螺旋CT增强扫描对胃癌T分期判断的总体准确率为79．2％（95／120）,其中对T1、T2、T3和T4期判断的准确率分别为66．7％（10／15）、66．7％（14／21）、84．0％（42／50）和85．3％（29／34）。对于单层胃壁结构和多层胃壁结构,CT增强扫描对T分期的准确率分别为59．4％（19／32）和81．8％（72／88）．差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。CT增强扫描对N分期判断的总体准确率为73．9％（85／115）,其中对N0N1和N2期判断的准确率分别为75．5％（37／49）、70．3％f26／37）和75．9％（22／29）：对M分期判断的准确率为89．2％（107／120）。结论64层螺旋CTi期动态增强扫描可早期动态观察肿瘤累及侵犯情况、淋巴转移及远处转移的情况．有望成为胃癌术前分期有重要意义的检佥项目之一。     

超声内镜和CT检查对判断食管癌根治性切除的临床价值

目的探讨超声内镜（EUS）和CT对判断食管癌能否根治性切除的临床价值。方法回顾性分析经手术治疗的746例食管癌患者的临床资料．按术前所行检查分为CT组（480例）、EUS组（151例）和EUS加CT组（115例）,采用双盲法,对EUS和CT影像进行回顾性阅片,并将各组结果和手术病理结果进行对照研究。结果CT组、EUS组和EUS加CT组患者的手术根治性切除率分别为91．0％、93．4％和93．9％：3组间差异无统计学意义（X2=1．551,P=0．484）。CT组、EUS组和EUS加CT组术前判断手术根治切除率分别为81．7％、94．7％和96．5％（Xz=15．131,P=0．000;x2=15．662,P=0．000：X2=0．502．P=0．346）;诊断主动脉受侵率分别为91．3％、98．7％和98．3％（X2=9．764,P=0．000;x2=6．659,P=0．004;x2=0．076,P=0．581）;诊断气管支气管受侵率分别为91.3％、96．0％和98．3％（X2=3．729,P=0．034;X2=6．659,P=0．004;X2=1．117,P=0．248）。结论EUS诊断食管癌根治切除和主动脉受侵的临床价值高于CT：EUS和CT诊断气管支气管受侵的价值均较低：与单独应用EUS相比．CT和EUS的联合应用未能显著提高诊断食管癌的根治切除率。     

超声内镜检查对食管癌术前TN分期的临床价值

目的判断超声内镜(EUS)在食管癌术前TN分期与术后病理检查的一致性。方法回顾分析286例食管癌手术患者术前EUS检查结果和术后病理资料,所有患者均经电子胃镜+活体组织病理检查确诊,将EUS分期与术后病理分期进行比较。结果 EUS T分期的灵敏度为87.76%,N分期的灵敏度为89.16%,T分期的准确率为87.76%,N分期的准确率为89.16%,T分期Kappa值为0.575,TN分期Kappa值为0.606,一致性为基本满意。N分期Kappa值为0.78,一致性为相当满意,P0.01。结论 EUS对食管癌术前T、N分期诊断准确率较高,有助于临床医生合理选择食管癌治疗方案。     

含弥散加权成像磁共振与增强CT对胃癌术前T分期诊断准确率的比较

目的比较增强cT与含弥散加权成像（DWI）的磁共振（MR）成像对胃癌术前T分期诊断的准确率。方法前瞻性纳入2011年11月至2012年8月间经胃镜活检病理证实的41例胃癌患者,术前分别予增强CT和MR检查（包含DWI、T2WI和动态增强扫描）。由两位放射科医师分别对癌灶进行检测和T分期．并以手术病理结果为金标准,比较CT与MR的T分期准确率以及观察者间一致性。结果含DWI的MR对胃癌患者总体T分期的诊断准确率为87．8％（36／41）,明显高于增强cT65．9％（27／41）的诊断准确率（P=0．004）。MR诊断的观察者问一致性（Kappa=O．813）优于增强cT诊断（Kappa=0．603）。结论含DWI的MR成像对胃癌术前T分期的诊断准确率较增强CT显著提高,有望于临床广泛应用。     

腔内水囊磁共振成像对直肠癌术前分期的诊断

目的评估腔内水囊磁共振成像（MRI）预测直肠癌术前分期的准确程度。方法回顾性分析19例直肠癌患者的临床资料，对照术前MRI和术后病理结果．评估MRI能否准确预测直肠癌T和系膜淋巴结转移（N）分期。结果MRI正确T分期15例（78．9％），错误4例，其中2例T1-2期报告为T3期，2例T3期报告为T1-2期；T1-2期的准确率为80％（8／10），B期的准确率为7／9。MRI正确N分期11例（57．9％），错误分期8例；其中高估2例，低估6例，灵敏度为3／9，特异度为80．0％（8／10）。结论术前腔内水囊MRI不能对直肠癌系膜淋巴结转移做出准确预测，可以对T分期进行一般预测。     

内镜超声检查和多层螺旋CT对胃癌术前T、N分期的比较研究

目的探讨内镜超声(endoscopicultrasonography,EUS)与多层螺旋CT(multi slicespiralCT,MSCT)在胃癌术前T、N分期中的临床应用价值。方法2000年10月至2002年5月,对89例活检证实的胃癌病人术前分别行内镜超声和多层螺旋CT检查,并与手术病理结果对照。结果EUS对胃癌术前T分期的准确率为75.6%,其中T176.5%,T268.8%,T384.4%,T464.7%;MSCT分别79.3%,58.8%,62.5%,90.6%和94.1%。两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。EUS对胃癌术前N分期的准确率为57.5%,其中N095.8%,N145.8%,N232.0%;MSCT分别78.1%,70.8%,75.0%和88.0%。EUS和MSCT对胃癌淋巴结转移的敏感性分别为61.2%和91.8%。EUS对N0分期的准确率显著高于MSCT(P<0.05),MSCT对N和N2分期的准确率及淋巴结转移的敏感性均显著高于EUS(P<0.05,P<0.01,P<0.01)。结论内镜超声检查与多层螺旋CT对胃癌术前TN分期均有较高的准确性。     

核磁共振与腔内超声对直肠癌术前局部分期的价值比较

目的 比较核磁共振(MRI)和腔内超声(EUS)对直肠癌术前分期的价值.方法 分别应用MRI和EUS检查对72例和55例直肠癌患者行术前分期,与手术及病理结果对比,比较MRI和EUS对直肠肿瘤浸润深度、区域淋巴结转移判断的准确性.结果 MRI判断T分期总的准确率为76.4％ (55/72),MRI评价N分期的准确率为63.9％ (46/72),EUS判断T分期总的准确率为81.8％(45/55),评价N分期的准确率为65.5％ (36/55).结论 MRI与EUS判断T分期的准确性差异无统计学意义,EUS判断早中期直肠肿瘤浸润层次的准确率高于MRI,两者判断N分期的准确率均较低.     

中低位直肠癌系膜浸润程度的临床研究

目的探讨中低位直肠癌直肠系膜浸润程度与临床病理特征及预后的关系。方法采用大组织切片技术,测量行全直肠系膜切除术的49例中低位直肠癌标本的肿瘤浸润深度及直肠系膜厚度,计算直肠系膜浸润程度;并分析其临床病理特征和随访结果。结果本组中低位直肠癌术后局部复发率为12．2％（6／49）,远处转移率为26．5％（13／49）。直肠癌直肠系膜浸润程度Ⅰ度20例（40．8％）,Ⅱ度13例（26．5％）,Ⅲ度16例（32．7％）,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ度者术后局部复发率分别为0、7．7％和31．3％（X^2=7．357,P=0．015）;远处转移率分别为10％、23．1％和50％（X^2=7．405,P=0．025）;5年生存率则分别为90．9％、69．2％和28．6％（p=0．013）。直肠系膜浸润程度与肿瘤直径（X^2=6．849,P=0．033）、T分期（X^2=34．845,P=0．000）、N分期（X^2=17．266,P=0．002）有关。结论直肠系膜浸润程度是影响直肠癌预后的重要因素。     

超声内镜在胃癌术前诊断中的应用分析

目的探讨超声内镜(EUS)在胃癌术前TN分期中的应用经验。方法术后病理检查证实为胃癌而且使用超声内镜进行了术前TN分期的患者352例,对其资料进行回顾性分析。结果 EUS胃癌术前T分期总正确率为81.25%,其中T1为85.58%,T2为73.91%,T3为82.14%,T4为83.33%,与术后病理结果比较具有高度一致性(Kappa系数为0.75)。EUS对胃癌术前N分期总的正确率为52.84%,其中N0为85.56%,N1为56.69%,N2为28.09%,N3为26.09%,与术后病理结果比较具有一般一致性(Kappa系数为0.33)。将病变部位分为贲门、胃底、胃体、胃窦、幽门,不同部位之间的检测正确率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论EUS在胃癌术前诊断中具有临床意义,其中T分期可为合理制定治疗方案提供依据,N分期准确性有待提高。     

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.     

Endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal carcinoma: comparison with multislice computed tomography and importance in the clinical decision making process

AIM: As resective surgery for oesophageal carcinoma is only appropriate for a selected cohort of patients, preoperative staging plays an important role in the management of these patients. This study assessed the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) staging in comparison with computerised tomography (CT) staging and the impact of EUS in management of patients with oesophageal carcinoma undergoing gastro-esophagectomy. METHODS: Ninety-six consecutive patients with oesophageal carcinoma underwent preoperative staging with multislice CT and EUS. Of these, 50 patients underwent gastro-esophagectomy, allowing preoperative staging data from these imaging modalities to be compared to postoperative histopathological staging, classified according to the TNM system. Management plans for these patients made without use of EUS were then compared to those following EUS staging. RESULTS: The overall accuracy rate of EUS for T staging was 64%, showing good agreement with postoperative histopathological staging of the resected specimen (weighted k=0.42, 95%CI= 0.32-0.52). In terms of clinical decision making, the T stage accuracy rose to 90% when differentiating T1 from T2/3 lesions. In terms of N staging, the overall accuracy was 72% (weighted k=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.54). In comparison, N staging by CT was significantly less accurate (62% vs 72%, P<0.01, chi squared) and showed poor agreement with postoperative histopathological nodal staging (weighted k=0.24, 95%CI =0.11-0.37). Importantly, in 56% of patients, staging information obtained from EUS instigated change in management compared to that configured without EUS. CONCLUSION: EUS enhances preoperative staging of oesophageal cancer and is important in preoperative clinical decision making process, especially with increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: With the advent of stage-adapted multimodal regimens for many gastrointestinal malignancies, accurate staging has become of utmost importance. In esophageal cancer, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) emerged as standard to determine T and N stage. OBJECTIVE: Since growth patterns of squamous carcinoma (SC) differs from adenocarcinoma (AC) and lymph nodes are located at various distances from the esophagus in a horizontal plane, we studied the accuracy of esophageal EUS as a function of tumor type and localization of the tumor within the esophagus. RESULTS: Overall staging accuracy was 79% for T and for N staging. Staging was more accurate for T3/4, when compared to T1/2 tumors, and for SC when compared to AC. Histological T1/2 stages were overstaged by EUS in 8/17 patients, mostly in patients with AC (6/10). The sensitivity of retrosternal pain and of dysphagia for extramural disease was 57 and 92% respectively, the specificity of pain for extramural disease was 73%, and of dysphagia 36%. Preoperative weight loss in this series correlated linearly with tumor stages. CONCLUSIONS: The accurate preoperative staging of T2 esophageal endodermal malignancies is crucial for treatment stratification but difficult to achieve by visual analysis of endosonography alone. Postacquisition processing of echoendosonographic images might further increase the accuracy of echoendosonography and aid in the critical differentiation of T2 versus T3 esophageal malignancies. Preoperative weight loss and retrosternal pain are good clinical indicators of extramural disease.     

The role of echo-endoscopy in the staging of squamous-cell carcinoma of the esophagus. The correlation between the surgical and anatomicopathological findings]

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a relatively new diagnostic method to assess the extent and the depth of infiltration of esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: From October 1990, 100 patients affected by esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent preoperative evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography, 85 of whom were operated on. The first 23 patients underwent endosonography with an Olympus GF-EUM2 with a 7.5 MHz echo-probe; the remaining 77 patients underwent EUS with an Olympus GF-EUM3 with a 7.5-12 MHz echo-probe. RESULTS: In 33 cases (33%), the procedure was not completed because of the impossibility of passing through the neoplastic stenosis. The depth of infiltration was correctly defined by EUS in 73 of 85 patients (86%) compared with 47% of Computed Tomography (CT) (p < 0.05). Overestimation occurred in 6 patients (7%), whereas underestimation occurred in 6 cases (7%). Lymph-node involvement was correctly classified by EUS in 50 of 57 patients (88%) compared with 39% of CT. CONCLUSIONS: EUS provides a high degree of accuracy in assessing both T and N parameters in staging esophageal cancer. The major problem of the method is still the frequent impossibility of passing through a neoplastic stenosis.