Helical CT versus EUS with fine needle aspiration for celiac nodal assessment in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND: Conventional CT is insensitive for detection of metastatic involvement of celiac lymph nodes in esophageal cancer. Helical CT has theoretical advantages over "slice" CT in this regard, but its performance has not yet been prospectively studied. METHODS: Consecutive patients with untreated esophageal cancer were recruited after obtaining informed consent. Helical CT was performed on all patients and TNM staging was performed by a single radiologist. Subsequently, all patients underwent esophageal radial and, as needed, curvilinear array EUS with fine needle aspiration (FNA), for evaluation of celiac lymph nodes and TNM staging. Test performance characteristics with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, assuming EUS with FNA as the reference standard. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were recruited, of whom 37 (77%) were men. The mean (SD) age was 63.6 (10) years. Excluding 5 patients in whom a confirmatory FNA was not available (n = 43), helical CT identified celiac lymph nodes in 12 (28%) patients. The reference standard of EUS with FNA identified 15 (35%) patients with metastatic celiac lymph nodes, giving a sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for helical CT of 53% (95% CI [28%, 79%]), 86% (95% CI [73%, 99%]), 67% (95% CI [40%, 93%]), and 77% (95% CI [63%, 92%]), respectively, for assessing celiac lymph nodal involvement. The sensitivity and specificity of helical CT in detecting T4 disease were 25% (95% CI [3.8%, 46%]) and 94% (95% CI [85%, 100%]), respectively. There were 12 patients (25%; 95% CI [13%, 37%]) who were felt to have resectable disease by helical CT but had either metastatic involvement of celiac lymph nodes or T4 disease by EUS/FNA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite technological advances, helical CT still appears unreliable, mainly because of insensitivity, for the identification of inoperable T4 or metastatic involvement of celiac lymph node disease in esophageal cancer.     

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.     

Staging of esophageal carcinoma in a low-volume EUS center compared with reported results from high-volume centers

BACKGROUND: It is well known that a learning curve exists for performing EUS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the number of EUS investigations performed in a center affects the results of esophageal cancer staging. DESIGN: We compared EUS in the evaluation of T stage and the presence of regional and celiac lymph nodes in a low-volume center where <50 EUS/endoscopist/y were performed with reported results from 7 high-volume EUS centers. SETTING: A reference center for esophageal cancer (>90 cases/y) but a low-volume center for EUS when it comes to individual endoscopists. PATIENTS: From 1994 to 2003, 244 patients underwent EUS, without specific measures to pass a stenotic tumor or FNA and with postoperative TNM stage as the criterion standard in the low-volume EUS center. In the high-volume centers, 670 EUS investigations for esophageal cancer were performed, if needed, with dilation, and with postoperative TNM stage and/or FNA as the criterion standard. INTERVENTIONS: Retrospective analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS for esophageal cancer staging. RESULTS: In the low-volume center, results of EUS for T3 staging in patients in whom passage of the EUS probe was possible were almost comparable for sensitivity (85% vs 88%-94%) but were lower for specificity (57% vs 75%-90%), whereas both sensitivity (58% vs 75%-90%) and specificity (87% vs 94%-97%) for T1 or T2 stages were lower than those reported in the high-volume centers. In the low-volume center, sensitivities of EUS for regional (45% vs 63%-89%) and celiac (19% vs 72%-83%) lymph nodes were lower, whereas specificities (75% vs 63%-82% and 99% vs 85%-100%, respectively) were comparable with those from high-volume centers. Results in the low-volume EUS center were worse if the EUS probe could not pass the stricture, which occurred in almost 30% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Both FNA and dilation before EUS for stenotic tumors were not performed in the low-volume EUS center. CONCLUSIONS: The results of EUS performed in a low-volume EUS center compared unfavorably with those reported from high-volume EUS centers. The results of this study suggest that preoperative staging by EUS should be performed by experienced and dedicated EUS endoscopists to optimize staging of esophageal cancer.     

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.     

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.     

Routine vs. selective EUS-guided FNA approach for preoperative nodal staging of esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a benign or a malignant origin. AIMS: (1) To identify a combination of EUS criteria that have a sufficient sensitivity and specificity to preclude the need for EUS-FNA and (2) to assess the cost savings derived from a selective EUS-FNA approach. METHODS: A total of 144 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively evaluated with EUS. Accuracy of standard (hypoechoic, smooth border, round, or width > 5 mm) and modified (4 standard plus EUS identified celiac lymph nodes, >5 lymph nodes, or EUS T3/4 tumor) criteria were compared (receiver operating characteristic curves). Resource utilization of two diagnostic strategies, routine (all patients with lymph nodes) and selective EUS-FNA (FNA only in those patients in whom the number of EUS malignant criteria provides a sensitivity and a specificity <100%), were compared. RESULTS: Modified EUS criteria for lymph-node staging were more accurate than standard criteria (area under the curve 0.88 vs. 0.78, respectively). No criterion alone was predictive of malignancy; sensitivity and specificity reached 100% when a cutoff value of >1 and >6 modified criteria were used, respectively. The EUS-FNA selective approach may avoid performing FNA in 61 patients (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Modified EUS lymph-node criteria are more accurate than standard criteria. A selective EUS-FNA approach reduced the cost by avoiding EUS-FNA in 42% of patients with esophageal carcinoma. These results require confirmation in future studies.     

Does FDG-PET add information to EUS and CT in the initial management of esophageal cancer? A prospective single center study

PURPOSE:  There is no algorithm for the initial staging of esophageal cancer that is considered standard of care. This prospective blinded study analyzes the utility of FDG-PET as an adjunct to EUS and CT for the management of patients with esophageal cancer.
METHODS:  Between December 2003 and October 2006, patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma underwent EUS, CT, and FDG-PET at their initial evaluation. Two thoracic surgeons were given staging EUS results and CT scan reports. They were asked if the patient needed surgical resection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resection, or palliation. With each case, one surgeon was unblinded to the FDG-PET results. The treatment decisions of each surgeon were compared to determine if PET altered clinical management.
RESULTS:  A total of 50 patients (45 male, 5 female) were enrolled and data were prospectively collected. Forty-three (86%) had adenocarcinoma and 7 (14%) had squamous cell carcinoma. EUS was completed in 88% (44) of cases while 6 (12%) were incomplete secondary to tight stenosis. Nineteen were treated with surgery, 25 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery, and 6 with palliative chemoradiation. In 49 of 50 patients, the surgeons came to identical management decisions independent of PET results. In the one case that the treatment decision differed, the EUS was incomplete. The agreement on treatment strategy was 98% (κ= 0.97, 95% CI 0.93–0.99).
CONCLUSION:  This study shows that the addition of FDG-PET to EUS and CT offers little information to the initial treatment stratification of patients with esophageal cancer. However, in patients with incomplete EUS, FDG-PET may have some clinical utility.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for non-small cell lung cancer staging: A systematic review and metaanalysis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a minimally invasive alternative technique for mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer. A metaanalysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for staging mediastinal lymph nodes (N2/N3 disease) in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using Medline (1966 to November 2005), CINAHL, and citation indexing. Included studies used histology or adequate clinical follow-up (> 6 months) as the "gold standard," and provided sufficient data for calculating sensitivity and specificity. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves metaanalysis was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: In 18 eligible studies, EUS-FNA identified 83% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 87%) with positive mediastinal lymph nodes (pooled sensitivity) and 97% of patients (95% CI, 96 to 98%) with negative mediastinal lymph nodes (pooled specificity). In eight studies that were limited to patients who had abnormal mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans, the sensitivity was 90% (95% CI, 84 to 94%) and the specificity was 97% (95% CI, 95 to 98%). In patients without abnormal mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans (four studies), the pooled sensitivity was 58% (95% CI, 39 to 75%). Minor complications were reported in 10 cases (0.8%). There were no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe modality for the invasive staging of lung cancer that is highly sensitive when used to confirm metastasis to mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans. In addition, among lung cancer patients with normal mediastinal adenopathy seen on CT scans, despite lower sensitivity, it has the potential to prevent unnecessary surgery in a large proportion of cases missed by CT scanning.     

Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on the accuracy of T staging in esophageal cancer and factors associated with its accuracy: A retrospective study

The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for esophageal cancer are variable. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of EUS for the T staging of esophageal cancer and to explore the factors that affect the accuracy.This was a retrospective study of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent EUS between January 2018 and September 2019 at the author''s hospital. All patients underwent EUS, surgery, and pathological examination. The diagnostic value of ultrasound-based T (uT) staging was evaluated using the pathological T (pT) staging as the gold standard.Finally, 169 patients were included. Among the 169 patients, 37 were overstaged by EUS, 33 were understaged, and 99 were correctly staged. The overall accuracy of EUS was 58.6%. Sensitivity was low, at 0% to 70.8% depending upon the pT stage, but specificity was higher, at 71.0% to 100.0%, also depending upon the pT stage. The multivariable analysis revealed that highly differentiated tumors (odds ratio = 9.167, P = .041) and pT stage ≥T2 (odds ratio = 2.932, P = .004) were independent factors of accurate uT stage.The staging of esophageal cancer using EUS has low sensitivity but high specificity. Highly differentiated tumors and pT stage ≥2 tumors were associated with the accuracy of uT staging.     

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.     

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.     

Preoperative TN staging of esophageal cancer： Comparison of miniprobe ultrasonography, spiral CT and MRI

AIM: To evaluate the value of miniprobe sonography (MPS), spiral CT and MR imaging (MRI) in the tumor and regional lymph node staging of esophageal cancer. METHODS: Eight-six patients (56 men and 30 women; age range of 39-73 years, mean 62 years) with esophageal carcinoma were staged preoperatively with imaging modalities. Of them, 81 (94 %) had squamous cell carcinoma, 4(5 %) adenocarcinoma, and 1(1 %) adenoacanthoma. Eleven patients (12 %) had malignancy of the upper one third, 41 (48 %) of the mid-esophagus and 34 (40 %) of the distal one third. Forty-one were examined by spiral CT in whom 13 were co-examined by MPS, and forty-five by MRI in whom 18 were also co-examined by MPS. These imaging results were compared with the findings of the histopathologic examination for resected specimens. RESULTS: In staging the depth of tumor growth, MPS was significantly more accurate (84 %) than spiral CT and MRI (68 % and 60 %, respectively, P<0.05). The specificity and sensitivity were 82 % and 85 % for MPS; 60 % and 69 % for spiral CT; and 40 % and 63 % for MRI, respectively. In staging regional lymph nodes, spiral CT was more accurate (78 %) than MPS and MRI (71 % and 64 %, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant. The specificity and sensitivity were 79 % and 77 % for spiral CT; 75 % and 68 % for MPS; and 68 % and 62 % for MRI, respectively. CONCLUSION: MPS is superior to spiral CT or MRI for T staging, especially in early esophageal cancer. However, the three modalities have the similar accuracy in N staging. Spiral CT or MRI is helpful for the detection of far-distance metastasis in esophageal cancer.     

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。     

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between benign and malignant mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes

Background Enlarged lymph nodes in the mediastinum reflect neoplastic, infectious or other diseases. The classification of these nodes is crucial in the management of the patient. Currently, only invasive measures obtaining tissue samples reach satisfying specificity. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may offer a non-invasive alternative. Materials and methods A total of 122 patients (age: 63 ± 15 years, 92 males, 30 females) with enlarged mediastinal and/or paraaortic lymph nodes diagnosed by CT scan were included in the study. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration was performed and cytologic specimens were diagnosed as representing a malignant or benign process in case of Papanicolau IV and V, or Papanicolau I and II, respectively. Results Based on cytology results, the investigated lymph nodes were classified as neoplastic (n = 48) or non-neoplastic lymph nodes. Using the B-mode criteria the preliminary diagnosis was confirmed in 64 out of 74 benign lymph nodes (specificity 86%). Regarding malignant lymph nodes 33 of 48 were confirmed (sensitivity 68%). Using the advanced contrast-enhanced EUS criteria the diagnosis was confirmed in 68 of 74 benign lymph nodes (specificity 91%). However, in case of malignant lymph nodes the number of correct diagnoses dropped to 29 of 48 lymph nodes (sensitivity 60%). The contrast-enhanced EUS criteria to identify benign lymph nodes and node enlargement in malignant lymphoma do not differ. If those ten patients with malignant lymphoma are excluded, the sensitivity of the contrast enhanced EUS for malignant lymph nodes rises to 73%. Conclusion Contrast-enhanced EUS improves the specificity in diagnosing benign lymph nodes as compared to B-mode EUS. It does not improve the correct identification of malignant lymph nodes and cannot replace EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. M. Hocke and M. Menges contributed equally to this work.     

Postoperative screening for anastomotic recurrence of esophageal carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography

Background: The usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma is well established. Alternatively, the role of EUS in the early diagnosis of anastomotic recurrence is less well accepted.Methods: EUS was used to evaluate 30 asymptomatic and 10 symptomatic patients (i.e., with dysphagia) who had previously undergone resection of esophageal carcinoma.Results: There were 3 (10%) unsuspected anastomotic recurrences in the asymptomatic group. EUS correctly identified locally recurrent cancer in all cases, whereas endoscopy confirmed the presence of only one anastomotic recurrence. Computed tomography was not diagnostic in any of the three recurrences. Sensitivity of EUS for recurrence of esophageal carcinoma was 100% compared with 33% for endoscopic diagnosis while the specificity was 96% for EUS compared with 100% for endoscopic biopsy. There was one false positive diagnosis of recurrence by EUS because of postoperative fibrosis resulting in concentric hypertrophy of the esophageal wall near the surgical anastomosis. Of the 10 symptomatic patients, 4 were diagnosed with tumor recurrence. EUS correctly predicted recurrences in all symptomatic patients (100% sensitivity and specificity), as did upper endoscopy with biopsy.Conclusions: EUS is more sensitive than upper endoscopy and CT scan for the evaluation of anastomotic recurrence of esophageal carcinoma and should be considered as an adjunctive modality to conventional endoscopy for the postoperative surveillance of these patients. (Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:540-4.)     

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.     

内镜超声弹性成像对消化道肿瘤淋巴结转移的诊断价值初探

目的 探讨内镜超声弹性成像在消化道肿瘤淋巴结转移判断中的价值.方法 应用内镜超声弹性成像技术对35例食管癌和胃癌患者共39个腹腔淋巴结、26个纵隔淋巴结进行检查,1～3分诊断为阴性淋巴结(良性淋巴结),4、5分诊断为阳性淋巴结(恶性淋巴结).与手术病理结果进行比较,评价内镜超声弹性成像的诊断价值.结果 65个淋巴结经内镜超声弹性成像诊断阴性淋巴结16个,阳性淋巴结49个.术后病理证实,内镜超声弹性成像诊断阳性淋巴结的敏感性为91.1%(41/45),特异性为60.0%(12/20).结论 内镜超声弹性成像有助于对肿瘤转移淋巴结的诊断.     

Assessment for diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer using endoscopic ultrasound elastography

Background

We performed endoscopic ultrasound real-time tissue elastography to more accurately diagnose lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of EUS elastography to distinguish benign from malignant lymph nodes in esophageal cancer patients.

Methods

The present study had two steps. As the first step (study 1), we developed diagnostic criteria for metastatic lymph nodes using elastography and verified the validity of the criteria. Three hundred and twenty-two lymph nodes from 35 patients treated by surgical resection were included in the study. As the second step (study 2), we preoperatively examined the lymph nodes of esophageal cancer patients with EUS elastography and compared its diagnostic performance with that of the conventional B-mode EUS images. A total of 115 lymph nodes from 31 patients were included.

Results

In study 1, lymph nodes were considered malignant if 50 % or more of the node appeared blue, or if the peripheral part of the lesion was blue and the central part was red/yellow/green. The sensitivity and specificity of the elastography were 79.7 and 97.6 % with an accuracy of 93.8 %, which was significantly higher than the values for conventional B-mode imaging. In study 2, the sensitivity and specificity of the EUS elastography were 91.2 and 94.5 % with an accuracy of 93.9 %, which was also significantly higher than the values for conventional B-mode EUS imaging.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that EUS elastography is useful for diagnosing lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer.

     

The impact of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) on esophageal cancer staging: a survey of thoracic surgeons and gastroenterologists

SUMMARY. Accurate staging of esophageal cancer is critical to achieving optimal treatment outcomes. End‐oscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) has emerged as a valuable tool for locoregional staging. However, it is unclear how different physician specialties perceive the benefit of EUS‐FNA for esophageal cancer staging, and thus utilize this modality in clinical practice. A survey regarding utilization of EUS‐FNA in esophageal cancer was distributed to 211 thoracic surgeons and 251 EUS‐capable gastroenterologists. Seventy‐six thoracic surgeons (36%) and 78 gastroenterologists (31%) responded to the survey. Most surgeons (75%) use EUS to stage potentially resectable esophageal cancer 75% of the time. Surgeons using EUS less often are less likely to have access to high‐quality EUS services than their peers. Fewer surgeons believe EUS is the most accurate test for T and N‐staging (84% and 71%, respectively) as compared with gastroenterologists (97% and 96%, P < 0.01 for both). Most endosonographers (68%) decide whether to dilate a malignant esophageal stricture to complete the staging exam on a case‐by‐case basis. Surgeons disagree as to whether involvement of celiac lymph nodes should preclude esophagectomy in distal esophageal cancer. While most thoracic surgeons have embraced EUS‐FNA as the most accurate locoregional staging modality in esophageal cancer, this attitude is not fully reflected in utilization patterns due to a lack of quality EUS services in some centers. Controversial areas that warrant further study include dilation of malignant strictures to facilitate EUS staging, and the implication of involved celiac lymph nodes on management.     

The utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in detecting celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the detection and confirmation of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer and to define EUS features predictive of celiac lymph node metastasis in these patients. METHODS: The records of 211 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent EUS staging were reviewed. The operating characteristics of EUS were determined in patients where either surgery, EUS-FNA of a celiac lymph node, or both were performed (n = 102). The association between selected variables and the presence of celiac lymph node metastasis was evaluated by univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: EUS in 48 patients provided a true-positive diagnosis of celiac lymph node involvement, a false-positive and false-negative result, respectively, in 6 and 14 patients, and a true-negative diagnosis in 34 patients. The sensitivity of EUS in detecting celiac lymph node was 77% (95% CI [67, 88]), specificity 85% (95% CI [74, 96]), negative predictive value 71% (95% CI [58, 84]), and the positive predictive value 89% (95% CI [81, 97]). EUS-FNA was performed in 94% (51/54) of patients with celiac lymph nodes. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in detecting malignant celiac lymph nodes was 98% (95% CI [90, 100]). Advanced T-stage, the need for dilation, detection of peritumoral lymph nodes, and black race were associated with celiac lymph node involvement. In multivariable analysis, advanced T-stage was the strongest predictor of celiac lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: EUS and EUS-FNA are highly accurate in detecting and confirming celiac lymph nodes metastasis. Depth of tumor invasion as assessed by EUS is a strong predictor of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer.