The role and clinical value of EUS in a multimodality esophageal carcinoma staging program with CT and positron emission tomography.

Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 4.9). 04/2007; 65(3):377-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT EUS, CT, and positron emission tomography (PET) have all been used in the preoperative staging of esophageal cancer separately or in various combinations.
Our purpose was to determine the value and role of EUS when used in conjunction with CT and PET imaging in staging cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.
Retrospective single-center clinical trial.
Academic tertiary care center.
Data were examined for 56 patients who concomitantly underwent examination with EUS, CT, and PET in a multimodality staging program.
EUS, CT, and PET were examined for their ability to detect the primary tumor, local tumor stage, locoregional adenopathy, and distant metastases. With use of surgical resection as baseline therapy, the frequency at which EUS, CT, and PET affected and changed management was examined.
EUS is the only imaging test that identified all primary tumors and provided tumor staging. EUS identified a significantly greater number of patients (58.9%) with locoregional nodes than did CT (26.8%), P = .0006, or PET (37.5%), P = .02. CT identified 14.3% and PET identified 26.8% of patients with distant metastases. With CT alone, 15.2% of patients were not taken to surgery, whereas PET affected management by preventing surgery because of metastatic disease in 28.3% of patients. EUS changed management by guiding the need for neoadjuvant therapy in 34.8% of patients.
Retrospective study, nonblinded study, lack of pathologic reference standard.
The primary strength of EUS in a multimodality staging strategy is in identifying patients with locally advanced disease and guiding the need for preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. EUS is not suited to determine resectability of esophageal cancer alone and thus is most effective when used in conjunction with other imaging tests such as CT and PET.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Esophageal cancer has a high likelihood of distant lymphatic spread even at an early stage. Radiotherapy plays a major role in the management of localized or locally-advanced esophageal cancer with a regional or distant lymph node involvement. Radiotherapy can sterilize micrometastatic nodes and cancer cells in transit in the peri-esophageal fat that are not removed by surgery. After preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by monobloc esophagectomy including lymph node dissection above and below the diaphragm, the locoregional failure rate was around 3% in the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer followed by Surgery Study Group (CROSS) trial. This is significantly lower than that observed with surgery alone or following exclusive chemoradiotherapy delivering 50Gy over 5 weeks. Patterns of failure usually combine local and nodal failure. These results suggest that: (1) radiotherapy plays a major role in the management of micrometastatic nodes that are not removed by surgery; (2) the total dose of radiotherapy without surgery may be too low to control macroscopic disease. Better knowledge of regional failure sites and the enhancement of clinical practices through homogenized nodal radiotherapy could lead to a decrease in regional relapses, but at the expense of irradiated volumes greater than the macroscopic tumor volume. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arctherapy makes it possible to increase mediastinal irradiated volumes while effectively protecting healthy tissues.
    Cancer/Radiothérapie 09/2014; · 1.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Perioperative or preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCTx) is nowadays standard for locally advanced esophageal cancer in Europe, as randomized studies have shown a significant survival benefit for patients with multimodal treatment. As responders and nonresponders have a significantly different prognosis, a response-based tailored preoperative treatment would be of utmost interest. An established method is a metabolic response evaluation by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). The level of metabolic response is known to be dependent on the localization, tumor entity and type of preoperative treatment. Association of FDG-PET with later response and prognosis was shown for absolute standardized uptake values (SUV) or a decrease of SUV levels before and after therapy but there are also contradictory findings in the literature and no prospective validation. However, neither time points nor cut-off for metabolic response evaluation have been defined so far. The most interesting approach seems to be early response monitoring during preoperative chemotherapy, which has shown promising results in prospective single center trials (MUNICON I/II) during chemotherapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), but needs to be validated in prospective multicenter trails.
    Der Chirurg 05/2014; · 0.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is operator-dependent. According to learning curve study, the accuracy of EUS T-staging for esophageal cancer has been reported to be greater in an investigator who had performed at least 100 EUS examinations. We determined comparative study regarding T-staging accuracy of EUS for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma between expert and nonexpert endoscopic ultrasonographers. We retrospectively identified 73 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent EUS and endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, or surgery. EUS was performed by expert (Group 1) and nonexpert (Group 2) endoscopic ultrasonographers in multitertiary hospitals. Groups 1 and 2 were 37 and 36 patients during 2005–2011, respectively. Forty-two patients (57.5%) of the overall patients underwent surgical exploration. Correct endoscopic ultrasonographic T-staging of Group 1 was observed in 34 (91.9%) patients, while that of Group 2 was observed in 26 (72.2%) patients. And there was significant difference in correct endoscopic ultrasonographic T-staging between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.035). The incorrect endoscopic ultrasonographic T-staging of Group 1 were three cases that were overstaging (8.1%), but in Group 2 there were seven overstaging (19.4%) and three understaging (8.3%). There was no significant difference in overstaging or understaging of incorrect endoscopic ultrasonographic T-staging between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.528). This study first provides evidence that endoscopic ultrasonographic T-staging of nonexpert endoscopic ultrasonographers was inferior to be correct, compared with that of expert endoscopic ultrasonographers. EUS staging for esophageal cancer should be performed by expert endoscopic ultrasonographers to provide appropriate management strategy.
    Diseases of the Esophagus 06/2014; · 2.06 Impact Factor