BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasing in the United States, and the 5-year survival rate is dismal. Preliminary data suggest that conventional imaging is inaccurate in staging esophageal cancer and could limit accurate assessment of new treatments. The objective of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgical staging (MIS) with conventional imaging for staging esophageal cancer. METHODS: Patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer were eligible. Staging by conventional methods used computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest and abdomen, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), whereas MIS used laparoscopy and videothoracoscopy. Conventional staging results were compared to those from MIS. RESULTS: In 53 patients, the following stages were assigned by CT scan and EUS: carcinoma in situ (CIS; n = 1), I (n = 1), II (n = 23), III (n = 20), IV (n = 8). In 17 patients (32.1%), MIS demonstrated inaccuracies in the conventional imaging, reassigning a lower stage in 10 patients and a more advanced stage in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In 32.1% of patients with esophageal cancer, MIS changed the stage originally assigned by CT scan and EUS. Therefore, MIS should be applied to evaluate the accuracy of new noninvasive imaging methods and to assess new therapies for esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasing in the United States, and the 5-year survival rate is dismal. Preliminary data suggest that conventional imaging is inaccurate in staging esophageal cancer and could limit accurate assessment of new treatments. The objective of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgical staging (MIS) with conventional imaging for staging esophageal cancer. METHODS:Patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer were eligible. Staging by conventional methods used computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest and abdomen, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), whereas MIS used laparoscopy and videothoracoscopy. Conventional staging results were compared to those from MIS. RESULTS: In 53 patients, the following stages were assigned by CT scan and EUS: carcinoma in situ (CIS; n = 1), I (n = 1), II (n = 23), III (n = 20), IV (n = 8). In 17 patients (32.1%), MIS demonstrated inaccuracies in the conventional imaging, reassigning a lower stage in 10 patients and a more advanced stage in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In 32.1% of patients with esophageal cancer, MIS changed the stage originally assigned by CT scan and EUS. Therefore, MIS should be applied to evaluate the accuracy of new noninvasive imaging methods and to assess new therapies for esophageal cancer.
Authors: J D Luketich; D M Friedman; T L Weigel; M A Meehan; R J Keenan; D W Townsend; C C Meltzer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: J D Luketich; P R Schauer; C C Meltzer; R J Landreneau; G K Urso; D W Townsend; P F Ferson; R J Keenan; C P Belani Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G Zuccaro; T W Rice; J Goldblum; S V Medendorp; M Becker; R Pimentel; L Gitlin; D J Adelstein Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J D Luketich; P Schauer; R Landreneau; N Nguyen; K Urso; P Ferson; R Keenan; R Kim Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: J D Luketich; E S Kassis; S P Shriver; N T Nguyen; P R Schauer; T L Weigel; S A Yousem; J M Siegfried Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Cuong P Duong; Helen Demitriou; Leann Weih; Anne Thompson; David Williams; Robert J S Thomas; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-02-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Haris Zahoor; James D Luketich; Ryan M Levy; Omar Awais; Daniel G Winger; Michael K Gibson; Katie S Nason Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 5.209