Comparison of preoperative TN staging of gastric carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography with CT examination

ＣｏｍｐａｒｉｓｏｎｏｆｐｒｅｏｐｅｒａｔｉｖｅＴＮｓｔａｇｉｎｇｏｆｇａｓｔｒｉｃｃａｒｃｉｎｏｍａｂｙｅｎｄｏｓｃｏｐｉｃｕｌｔｒａｓｏｎｏｇｒａｐｈｙｗｉｔｈＣＴｅｘａｍｉｎａｔｉｏｎＧＵＯＷｅｎ１,ＺＨＡＮＧＹａＬｉ１,ＬＩＧｕｏＸｉｎ...     

超声内镜及CT检查对食管癌术前TN分期的价值

目的 评价超声内镜、螺旋CT检查对食管癌术前TN分期的价值.方法 回顾性总结术前EUS、CT判断87例食管癌的分期资料,并与术后病理分期对照.患者均未行化、放疗.环扫超声内镜进行操作,5例轻度狭窄病例扩张后再予EUS分期.结果 EUS T分期总准确率为85.1%,CT无法区分T1、T2.对于N分期,EUS判断探及范围内淋巴结转移的灵敏度为85.0%,高于CT扫描的60.8%;CT探查纵隔淋巴结较EUS全面.EUS与cT联合判断T分期的准确率为85.1%,N分期的准确率为90.8%.结论 EUS判断肿瘤浸润深度准确性高,EUS联合CT可进行更为全面准确的TNM分期.     

Superficial Esophageal Carcinoma: Evaluation by Endoscopic Ultrasonography

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the staging of superficial esophageal carcinoma (SEC). Methods: We examined the histopathologic findings of 28 patients with SEC which was confirmed in the postoperative histologic evaluation. The EUS results preoperatively estimated were compared with them. Results: There were nine patients with mucosal carcinoma (two intraepithelial carcinomas and seven carcinomas limited to the mucosal layer) and 19 patients with submucosal carcinoma. The mucosal carcinomas revealed no lymph node metastasis or vessel permeation, whereas the submucosal carcinomas revealed lymph node metastasis (71%) and vessel permeation (lymphatic, 58%, vascular, 21%). The accuracy rates of depth of invasion by EUS were mucosa, 67% (6/9); submucosa, 79% (15/19); and total, 75% (21/28). EUS could not detect microinvasion to the submucosa. The overall accuracy rate of EUS in the evaluation of periesophagogastric lymph node metastasis was 72%: sensitivity 58% and specificity 85%. Conclusions: It has been clinically proved important to differentiate mucosal carcinoma from submucosal carcinoma in the staging of SEC, and EUS is recommended in differentiating between them.     

Pre-operative staging of recto-sigmoid colon carcinoma by upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess the accuracy of a new generation endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)(GF-M200) in pre-operative staging of recto-sigmoid colon carcinoma invasion and lymph node metastasis. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-three patients with biopsy proven colon cancer were included in this study. These comprised 60 patients with rectal carcinoma and 13 patients with sigmoid carcinoma. All patients were pre-operatively examined by EUS. Pathological findings of the depth of tumor invasion and presence of lymph node metastasis were correlated with EUS. RESULTS: EUS has an overall accuracy rate of 89% in staging of recto-sigmoid cancer. The diagnostic accuracy rate was 83% for T1, 83% for T2, 93% for T3, and 71% for T4. Understaging and overstaging occurred in 6% and 6%, respectively. In determining lymph node metastasis, the overall accuracy rate was 77%, with a sensitivity and specificity rate of 77% and 76%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is a valuable staging modality in the staging of the depth of tumor invasion, not only for rectal carcinoma but also for tumors located at the sigmoid colon.     

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography, and transabdominal ultrasound in the detection and staging of primary ampullary tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the accuracy between EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography), CT (computed tomography), and transabdominal US (ultrasound) in the detection and staging of primary ampullary tumors. We will also try to discuss the influence of endobiliary stent on EUS in staging ampullary tumors. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-one patients with ampullary tumors were evaluated by EUS, ERCP, CT, and US before operation. The accuracy was assessed with TNM staging and compared with the surgical-pathological findings. RESULTS: EUS was superior to CT and US in detecting ampullary tumors, but EUS and ERCP are of similar sensitivity (EUS 95%, ERCP 95%, CT 19%, US 5%). EUS was superior to CT and US in T staging (EUS 75%, CT 5%, US 0%) and detecting lymph node metastasis (EUS 50%, CT 33%, US 0%) of ampullary tumors. The accuracy of EUS in T and N staging of ampullary tumors tended to be decreased in the presence of endobiliary stent (stenting: T 71%, N 75%; nonstenting T 83%, N 100%), but there was no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: EUS was superior to CT and US in assessing primary ampullary tumors, but it was not significantly superior to ERCP in detecting ampullary tumors. The presence of endobiliary stent may decrease the accuracy of EUS in staging ampullary tumors.     

联合应用超声内镜与超声微探头在早期食管癌术前分期中的作用

目的 探讨超声内镜联合超声微探头对早期食管浅表癌浸润深度和淋巴结转移的判断及其临床意义.方法 联合应用超声内镜和超声微探头对121例共124处早期浅表型食管癌病灶行临床分期,并与术后及黏膜切除后病理分期相比较.结果 内镜超声检查对早期食管癌术前T分期总的准确率为82.3%(102/124).本组早期食管癌淋巴结总的转移率为5.0%(6/121),其中原位无一例淋巴结转移,黏膜内癌淋巴结转移率为1.3%(1/78),黏膜下癌淋巴结转移率为11.6%(5/43).结论 联合使用超声内镜及超声微探头对早期食管癌可以进行准确的分期,可以指导早期食管癌治疗策略的选择.     

Is positron emission tomography useful in locoregional staging of esophageal cancer? Results of a multidisciplinary initiative comparing CT, positron emission tomography, and EUS

BACKGROUND: Various modalities including CT, positron emission tomography (PET), and EUS are being used for esophageal cancer staging. OBJECTIVE: We compared results of locoregional staging by CT, PET, and EUS with histologic staging. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients with esophageal cancer proven by endoscopy and biopsy underwent a CT scan of the chest and abdomen and a PET scan. Patients with no evidence of distant metastatic disease on CT and PET were referred for EUS for locoregional staging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The tumor size (T) and lymph node (N) stage as determined by EUS were compared with surgical pathology or EUS-guided FNA cytology. The results of N staging with CT, PET, and EUS were compared with surgical pathology or EUS-FNA cytology. RESULTS: Between May 2005 and April 2006, 29 patients (24 men, mean age 68 years) underwent EUS. EUS was successful in 25 of 29 patients (86%). There were no EUS-related complications. Eleven of 16 patients with available lymph node histologic study had confirmed metastasis. Nodal metastasis was correctly identified by CT in 6 of 11 patients, by PET in 4 of 11 patients, and by EUS in 10 of 11 patients. Overall accuracy for N staging was 69% for CT, 56% for PET, and 81% for EUS. Fifteen patients had confirmed T staging by surgical pathologic examination. The percentage of agreement for T staging between EUS and surgical pathology was 80% (12/15 patients). LIMITATIONS: Single center, retrospective chart review. CONCLUSION: EUS is safe and accurate for tumor and node staging in esophageal cancer. The combination of CT plus EUS appears to be accurate for locoregional staging in esophageal cancer.     

Lymph node staging in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography versus computed tomography

Background and Aim:  Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is established as a standard approach for locoregional staging of esophageal cancer. However, only a few published studies have attempted to correlate the station of the abnormal lymph nodes detected by EUS with the definitive histology. We compared EUS and computed tomography (CT) in the initial staging of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Methods:  Consecutive patients with esophageal cancer undergoing EUS were evaluated. EUS findings and patient data including histopatology were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Lymph node locations were divided into three groups; abdominal (A), paraesophageal (B), and thoracic paratracheal (C).
Results:  A total of 365 consecutive patients underwent EUS and 159 patients underwent esophagectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Thirty-eight patients were excluded (insufficient EUS, etc.), and 121 patients were enrolled. The overall accuracy of EUS was 64% (sensitivity 68%, specificity 58%, positive predictive value [PPV] 68%), CT was 51% (sensitivity 33%, specificity 75%, PPV 64%), and CT + EUS was 64% (sensitivity 74%, specificity 50%, PPV 66%). The accuracy of EUS was higher than CT in Groups A and C. Sensitivity of CT was lower than that of EUS alone and CT + EUS.
Conclusions:  This study has demonstrated that EUS is a more accurate technique than contrast-enhanced CT for detecting abnormal lymph nodes. Sensitivity of CT was lower than that of EUS alone and CT + EUS. But some metastatic lymph nodes in neck and abdominal fields are only detectable by CT. Therefore, both EUS and CT should be undertaken for routine examination prior to treatment of esophageal cancer.     

A cost analysis of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE: The use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of suspicious lymph nodes has become an important aid in the staging of esophageal carcinoma. The economic impact of this staging strategy has not yet been described. We applied a decision analysis model to compare the costs of EUS FNA, CT-guided FNA, and surgery in the management of esophageal tumors. A cost-minimization approach was employed, as viewed from the perspective of the payer. METHODS: A decision analysis model with three management arms was designed using DATA 3.5 software, taking the entry criteria as esophageal carcinoma without evidence of distant metastases as determined by CT. Detection of tumor on celiac lymph node (CLN) FNA signified unresectability and prompted palliative treatment: chemoradiotherapy with endoscopic esophageal stenting rather than surgery. Baseline probabilities were varied through plausible ranges using sensitivity analysis. Cost inputs were based on Medicare professional fees plus Medicare facility fees. The endpoint was the cost of management per patient. RESULTS: EUS FNA was the least costly strategy ($13,811), compared to CT FNA ($14,350) and surgery ($13,992). The model outcome was sensitive to changes in both EUS FNA sensitivity and prevalence of CLN metastases. EUS FNA remained the least costly option provided the prevalence of CLN involvement was >16%; below this value, surgery became the most economical strategy. CONCLUSION: By minimizing unnecessary surgery, primarily by detecting CLN involvement, EUS FNA is the least costly staging strategy in the workup of patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. Under certain circumstances, surgery is the preferred strategy.     

Diagnostic accuracy of tumor staging and treatment outcomes in patients with superficial esophageal cancer

Background We examined the current status and diagnostic accuracy of currently available techniques for tumor staging and assessed treatment outcomes in patients with superficial esophageal cancer who received esophaguspreserving therapy, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) alone or combined with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods In 274 patients with superficial esophageal cancer, we examined the depth of tumor invasion and the degree of lymph node metastasis by means of endoscopy, magnifying endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and cervical and abdominal ultrasonography (US). We compared treatment outcomes among treatment groups according to the depth of tumor invasion. Results The rates of correctly diagnosing the depth of tumor invasion were 89.6% on conventional endoscopy, 90.1% on magnifying endoscopy, and 85% on scanning with a high-frequency miniature ultrasonic probe (miniature US probe). Diagnostic accuracy for the m3 or sm1 cancers was poor. Magnifying endoscopy allowed invasion to be more precisely estimated, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy. However, lesions that maintained their surface structure despite deep invasion were misdiagnosed on magnifying endoscopy. A miniature US probe was useful for the assessment of such lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS for lymph node metastasis was 83%, with a sensitivity of 76%. The sensitivity of CT was 29%, and that of cervical and abdominal US was 17%. Patients with m1 or m2 cancer had good outcomes after esophagus-preserving therapy. Although there were no significant differences in survival rates, many patients with sm2 or sm3 cancer who received CRT died of their disease. Nodal recurrence was diagnosed by EUS. In patients who received CRT, the time to the detection of recurrence was slightly prolonged. Conclusions Long-term follow-up at regular intervals is essential in patients with m3 or sm esophageal cancers who receive esophagus-preserving treatment. At present, EUS is the most reliable technique for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis and is therefore essential for pretreatment evaluation as well as for follow-up. Earlier detection of recurrence at a level that would potentially salvage treatment remains a topic for future research. Review articles on this topic also appeared in the previous issue (Volume 4 Number 3). An editorial related to this article is available at .     

Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on lymph node staging in patients with esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Preoperative identification of lymph node metastases associated with esophageal carcinoma may influence treatment. EUS is the most accurate method for locoregional staging of these tumors. The impact of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) on lymph node staging in esophageal carcinoma is unclear. METHODS: From May 1996 to May 1999, 74 patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent preoperative EUS. After October 1998 EUS-guided FNA was performed on nonperitumoral lymph nodes greater than 5 mm in width. The results of EUS with and without FNA were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Final diagnosis was based on surgical results or EUS-guided FNA malignant cytology. Ten of the 74 patients had to be excluded for lack of lymph node stage confirmation. Final diagnosis was obtained in the remaining 64 patients (33 from the EUS only group and 31 from the EUS-FNA group). RESULTS: The results of EUS versus EUS-FNA for lymph node staging were sensitivity 63% versus 93% (p = 0.01), specificity 81% versus 100% (not significant), and accuracy 70% versus 93% (p = 0.02), respectively. Complications comprised 1 patient who developed self-limited bleeding after dilation that did not preclude completion of the EUS (1%, 95% CI [0%, 7%]). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is more sensitive and accurate than EUS alone for preoperative staging of locoregional and celiac lymph nodes associated with esophageal carcinoma. EUS-FNA of nonperitumoral lymph nodes in patients with esophageal carcinoma is safe and should be routinely performed when treatment decisions will be affected by nodal stage.     

内镜超声检查术在食管癌术前分期的临床应用

目的探讨内镜超声检查术(EUS)对食管癌术前分期的作用及其临床意义。方法依据UICC1997年分期标准，对61例食管癌患者术前行EUS临床分期，并与术后病理分期相比较。结果术前EUS对T亚组的临床分期较易，其总准确率为86．9％；而N亚组的临床分期较难，其总准确率为52．5％，敏感性和特异性分别为88．9％及23．5％。结论EUS能较准确的判断食管癌的浸润深度，对N分期的准确性有待于进一步提高。EUS可作为术前治疗方法选择、手术可切除性预测的重要依据。     

超声内镜在胃癌食管癌术前诊断中的应用

为探讨超声内镜（ＥＵＳ）在胃癌、食管癌术前诊断中的应用价值，对３６例胃癌、１５例食管癌术前进行ＥＵＳ检查，将其结果与术后病理对照。根据肿瘤新ＴＮＭ分期，ＥＵＳ对胃癌、食管癌术前Ｔ分期判断的准确率分别为８１％，８７％；对Ｎ分期判断的准确率分别为７２％，８０％。对胃癌、食管癌术前可切除性分期（Ｒ０）判断的准确率分别为９５％，９３％。提示ＥＵＳ能较准确地判断胃癌、食管癌的分期；能准确地判断早期癌，为早癌的内镜切除提供可靠的依据；对ＢｏｒｒｍａｎｎⅣ型癌的诊断也有重要意义。     

The impact of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography on the TNM staging of early cancer in Barrett's esophagus

INTRODUCTION: Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are part of the regular staging protocol in esophageal cancer. The value of the two methods was assessed in patients with early cancer in Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients (median age 64 yr, interquartile range [IQR] 58-72) with suspected early cancer in Barrett's esophagus who were referred to our hospital for endoscopic therapy were prospectively included in a standardized staging program with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, EUS (7.5 MHz in all cases plus 12.5 or 20 MHz for elevated and/or depressed lesions), CT of the chest and upper abdomen, and abdominal ultrasonography. The results were summarized in accordance with the TNM classification. On the basis of the lymph node findings on CT and/or EUS, the patients were assigned to three categories: C1, no suspicious lymph nodes; C2, paraesophageal lymph nodes < or =1 cm in size at the tumor level, lymph nodes > or =1 cm in size not at the tumor level in the mediastinum or celiac trunk; and C3, paraesophageal lymph nodes > 1 cm in size at the tumor level. The EUS and CT findings were checked every 6 months in patients who underwent endoscopic treatment. Surgical resection was scheduled in operable patients if staging showed a T category higher than T1 and/or the lymph node staging was assessed as C3. Patients with suspected submucosal infiltration underwent diagnostic endoscopic resection, and if submucosal involvement was confirmed were referred for surgery. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 25 months (IQR 19.5-30.0). The T category diagnosed with CT was < or = T1 in all patients. On EUS, the T category was classified as T1 in 92% of cases (N = 92) and as > T1 in 8% (N = 8, p < 0.05). Enlarged lymph nodes (C2 and C3) were detected in 45% of the patients. Significantly more C2 lymph nodes were diagnosed with EUS than CT (28 vs 19, p < 0.05). Lymph nodes at the level with the highest suspicion, C3, were detected using CT in only three of nine cases. Sensitivity of CT for N staging was not acceptable compared with EUS (38%vs 75%). No extranodal metastases were found on CT. CONCLUSIONS: In suspected early cancer in Barrett's esophagus, EUS is superior to CT for T staging and N staging. As CT had no influence on the TNM classification in any of these patients, it may be possible to dispense with this method as a staging procedure in patients with cancer in Barrett's esophagus. By contrast, EUS is required in order to differentiate between patients with cancer in Barrett's esophagus in whom endoscopic therapy is suitable and those in whom surgical treatment is required.     

Comparative study between endoscopic ultrasonography and positron emission tomography‐computed tomography in staging patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Treatment strategy of esophageal cancer mainly depends on accurate staging. At present, no single ideal staging modality is superior to another in preoperative tumor‐node‐metastasis (TNM) staging of patients with esophageal cancer. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) for staging of esophageal cancer. We retrospectively studied 118 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) over a near 3‐year period between January 2005 and November 2008 at a tertiary hospital in Taiwan. Patients were separated into two groups: without neoadjuvant CRT (group 1, n= 28) and with CRT (group 2, n= 90). Medical records of demographic data and reports of EUS and PET‐CT of patients before surgery were reviewed. A database of clinical staging by EUS and PET‐CT was compared with one of pathological staging. The accuracies of T staging by EUS in groups 1 and 2 were 85.2% and 34.9%. The accuracies of N staging by EUS in groups 1 and 2 were 55.6% and 39.8%. The accuracies of T and N staging by means of PET‐CT scan were 100% and 54.5% in group 1, and were 69.4% and 86.1% in group 2, respectively. In group 2, 38 of 90 patients (42.2%) achieved pathologic complete remission. Among them, two of 34 (5.9%) and 12 of 17 (70.6%) patients were identified as tumor‐free by post‐CRT EUS and PET‐CT, respectively. EUS is useful for initial staging of esophageal cancer. PET‐CT is a more reliable modality for monitoring treatment response and restaging. Furthermore, the accuracy of PET‐CT with regard to N staging is higher in patients who have undergone CRT than those who have not.     

Evaluation of metastatic celiac axis lymph nodes in patients with esophageal carcinoma: accuracy of EUS.

BACKGROUND: Endosonography (EUS) is the most accurate modality for assessing depth of tumor invasion and local lymph node metastasis. However, its accuracy in the identification of metastatic (celiac axis) lymph nodes is less well defined. Our objective in this study was to determine the accuracy of Eus in detecting celiac axis lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent preoperative EUS. Of these, 145 underwent attempted surgical resection and staging, and 4 underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of mediastinal and celiac lymph nodes. Local (mediastinal) and distant (celiac axis) lymph nodes were assessed for malignancy on the basis of four criteria (larger than 1 cm, round, homogeneous echo pattern, sharp borders). Accuracy of EUS was determined by means of correlating histopathologic findings for the resected lymph nodes or results of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytologic examination. RESULTS: Surgical exploration (n = 145) and fine-needle aspiration cytologic examination (n = 4) revealed metastatic celiac axis lymph nodes in 23 and metastatic mediastinal (local) lymph nodes in 93 of 149 patients with esophageal carcinoma. According to defined criteria for malignant lymph nodes, there were 19 true-positive and 4 falsenegative results. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of celiac lymph node metastasis with EUS was 83% with a 98% specificity. For the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastasis, sensitivity was 79% and specificity was 63%. All patients with malignant celiac axis lymph nodes had local T3 (tumor breaching adventitia) or T4 (tumor invading adjacent organs) disease. CONCLUSION: EUS is an excellent modality in the evaluation of metastatic celiac axis lymph nodes in patients with esophageal carcinoma. These findings should be used in selecting options for treatment. Sensitivity for detecting malignancy is consistent with that of prior studies, and local and regional lymph nodes and specificity is significantly higher.     

Staging of colonic neoplasms by colonoscopic miniprobe ultrasonography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In contrast to the situation in the upper gastrointestinal tract staging of colonic neoplasm by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has not gained importance because until yet preoperative staging is without any clinical consequences. This may change with the introduction of minimally invasive surgical procedures and endoscopic resection techniques as an alternative to conventional (open) surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed EUS with a miniprobe in 54 consecutive patients with colonic tumors who had been referred to our hospital for endoscopic resection or for laparoscopic resection of their lesions. Therefore patients with locally advanced tumors or systemic tumor spread were not included. After detection of the lesion during colonoscopy miniprobe EUS was performed with water-filling of the colonic lumen. The depth of invasion (T classification) and the local lymph node status (positive or negative) was ascertained. Lymph node-negative lesions staged as T1 underwent endoscopic resection whenever this was technically possible. In lymph node-negative T2-3 tumors laparoscopic resection was planned if they were localized at least 10 cm apart from the flexuras. All other lesions were resected by open surgery. The EUS findings were later compared with the final pathological results (pTN classification) of the resected specimen. RESULTS: In 50 patients (93%) a sufficient EUS evaluation of the colonic tumor was possible. In one patient with a tumor at the left flexura the lesion could not be completely visualized, and in three patients a sufficient water filling of the colon was impossible. The infiltration depth was correctly classified in 17 adenomas, 16 T1, 8 T2, 5 T3, and one T4-carcinoma (EUS accuracy for T staging: 94%). Two T2 and one T3 carcinoma were overstaged by EUS while no understaging was recorded. The lymph node status was correctly classified in 42/50 patients (84%), and a false-negative lymph node status was found in only 4/50 cases (8%). The overall accuracy of EUS was 80%. CONCLUSION: Miniprobe EUS is suitable and has a sufficient but not optimal accuracy for staging of colonic neoplasm. Its employment makes sense if minimally invasive resection techniques in patients with high-risk for open surgery are planned.     

Computer-assisted analysis of lymph nodes detected by EUS in patients with esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: EUS determination of lymph nodal spread of intestinal cancer based on imaging alone is problematic. A noninvasive, reliable means of determining tumor spread to lymph nodes is desirable. This study investigated the feasibility of a computer-assisted evaluation of lymph nodes detected by EUS in patients with esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: Images were obtained during EUS of esophageal lesions and correlated with histopathologic findings after esophagectomy. Sonographic features of echogenicity, whole-node heterogeneity, and regional variability were assessed by computerized image analysis in patients with benign versus malignant lymphadenopathy. RESULTS: Malignant lymph nodes were hypoechoic compared with benign lymph nodes (p < 0.04). Whole lymph node heterogeneity was increased in malignant lymph nodes (p < 0.004). Regional variability was greater for benign lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the feasibility of a computer-assisted system for analysis of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Further refinements of such a system could increase the accuracy of EUS staging of tumors.     

内镜超声检查在胃癌诊断和分期中的临床应用

目的评价内镜超声检查(EUS)对胃癌患者术前诊断和分期的准确性,以指导临床治疗方案的选择。方法22例经胃镜加活检病理检查确诊(17例)和疑诊为胃癌但常规活检阴性的患者(5例),同时行EUS、腹部螺旋CT检查,疑诊者在EUS检查的同时行EUS引导下细针穿刺活检(FNAB)以明确诊断。确定肿瘤侵犯深度(T)、局部淋巴结转移(N)、周围及远处器官转移(M)等分期情况,并与手术及病理对照,以评价EUS对胃癌诊断及TNM临床分期的准确性。结果5例疑诊者行EUS引导下FNAB全部成功取得肿瘤组织,病理诊断腺癌4例,印戒细胞癌1例。1例术前EUS诊断为T1N0M0期的患者行内镜下黏膜切除术,其余患者全部行外科胃癌根治术。与手术和病理结果比较,EUS对于TNM分期诊断总的敏感性和特异性分别为T:84.9%,74.2%;N:92.1%,77.1%;M:63.4%,87.5%。螺旋CT对于胃壁是否增厚及N、M分期的敏感性和特异性分别为T:27.3%,75%;N:31.5%,100%;M:50%,100%。其中EUS对于T和N分期的敏感性较CT高(P<0.05)。结论EUS术前评价胃癌临床分期具有显著的优越性,尤其是对于肿瘤侵犯深度和局部淋巴结转移的诊断,对指导临床治疗方案的选择及术后随访具有重要的参考价值。     

Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: the prognostic usefulness of ascites detected by endoscopic ultrasound

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the standard modality in local preoperative staging of gastric cancers and is reputedly able to detect ascites. However, the association between ascites detected by EUS and local tumor staging, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or survival after surgery is not well documented. GOALS: To assess the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS in the preoperative staging and detection of ascites in gastric cancers. We also try to correlate ascites with histologic staging, tumor differentiation, and survival rate of gastric carcinoma after surgery. STUDY: The retrospective analysis was made in 57 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinomas that underwent EUS before surgery. The accuracy of EUS was compared with the final surgical-pathologic findings. We estimated the prognostic usefulness by analyzing the clinicopathologic features of gastric adenocarcinomas and following up their survival rates. RESULTS: The overall T staging was 88% accurate by EUS. The accuracy for T staging was as follows: T1, 100%; T2, 33%; T3, 93%; and T4, 100%. About 50% of T2 cases were overstaged. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of detecting lymph node metastasis by EUS were 79%, 79%, and 80%, respectively. One of the seven T1 cancers had regional lymph node metastasis, and it was missed by EUS, although the T classification was precisely staged based on finding submucosal invasion. A total of 22 patients (39%) had ascites detected by EUS; both the sensitivity and specificity of EUS in demonstrating ascites were 100% in our study. Ascites was significantly correlated with the depth of tumor invasion ( = 0.036), lymph node metastasis ( = 0.008), and poor cellular differentiation ( = 0.007), but it was not significantly correlated with macroscopic peritoneal carcinomatosis. The survival rate after surgical treatment was poor in those with gastric cancers with lymph node metastasis, ascites, or poorly differentiated tumors ( < 0.05). However, multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis was the only significant prognostic predictor ( = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound is a valuable diagnostic tool in the local staging of gastric cancers and demonstration of ascites. Although the surgical treatment of gastric cancers with lymph node metastasis, ascites, or poor differentiation had poorer survival rate, only lymph node metastasis was proved to be a significant prognostic predictor in multivariate analysis.