BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an accurate staging modality for esophageal malignancy. Studies have determined that EUS does not retain this accuracy after chemoradiation and that it should not be used as a restaging tool for esophageal carcinoma. In this study, the authors examined their experience with esophageal carcinoma and restaging after neoadjuvant therapy with EUS. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted that included 83 patients with locoregional esophageal adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemoradiation under protocol. All patients underwent surgical resection. EUS was performed for restaging, and the results were compared with findings at surgical pathology using the TNM classification system. RESULTS: All 83 patients identified underwent surgery. There were 77 males, and the mean patient age was 59 years. At restaging, the tumor status (T classification) was assessed correctly by EUS in 22 of 83 patients (29%). The sensitivity of EUS for the individual T classifications were 0% for T0 tumors, 19% for T1 tumors, 27% for T2 tumors, 52% for T3 tumors, and 0% for T4 tumors. In 19 of 83 patients, the tumor classification was correct, whereas 42 of 83 patients were over classified, and 15 of 83 patients were under classified when the EUS results were compared with the surgical pathology results. The lymph node status (N classification) was assessed correctly by EUS in 41 of 83 patients. The sensitivity of EUS for N classification was 48% for N0 disease and 52% for N1 disease. Twenty-two patients were restaged with residual disease according to the EUS results but had no evidence of residual tumor or lymph node involvement according to the surgical pathology results. CONCLUSIONS: EUS did not retain its usefulness as a restaging modality after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal adenocarcinoma when the standard TNM classification system was used. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an accurate staging modality for esophageal malignancy. Studies have determined that EUS does not retain this accuracy after chemoradiation and that it should not be used as a restaging tool for esophageal carcinoma. In this study, the authors examined their experience with esophageal carcinoma and restaging after neoadjuvant therapy with EUS. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted that included 83 patients with locoregional esophageal adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemoradiation under protocol. All patients underwent surgical resection. EUS was performed for restaging, and the results were compared with findings at surgical pathology using the TNM classification system. RESULTS: All 83 patients identified underwent surgery. There were 77 males, and the mean patient age was 59 years. At restaging, the tumor status (T classification) was assessed correctly by EUS in 22 of 83 patients (29%). The sensitivity of EUS for the individual T classifications were 0% for T0 tumors, 19% for T1 tumors, 27% for T2 tumors, 52% for T3 tumors, and 0% for T4 tumors. In 19 of 83 patients, the tumor classification was correct, whereas 42 of 83 patients were over classified, and 15 of 83 patients were under classified when the EUS results were compared with the surgical pathology results. The lymph node status (N classification) was assessed correctly by EUS in 41 of 83 patients. The sensitivity of EUS for N classification was 48% for N0 disease and 52% for N1 disease. Twenty-two patients were restaged with residual disease according to the EUS results but had no evidence of residual tumor or lymph node involvement according to the surgical pathology results. CONCLUSIONS: EUS did not retain its usefulness as a restaging modality after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal adenocarcinoma when the standard TNM classification system was used. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Michael J McNamara; David J Adelstein; Daniela S Allende; Joanna W Bodmann; Denise I Ives; Sudish C Murthy; Daniel Raymond; Siva Raja; Cristina P Rodriguez; Davendra Sohal; Kevin L Stephans; Gregory M M Videtic; Lisa A Rybicki Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2017-06
Authors: Pooja R Rohatgi; Stephen G Swisher; Arlene M Correa; Tsung-T Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Garrett L Walsh; Ara A Vaporciyan; David C Rice; Norio Fukami; Jack A Roth; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Int J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2005
Authors: Christopher P Twine; S Ashley Roberts; Jonathan D Barry; Huw Oliphant; Matthew A Morgan; Guy R J Blackshaw; Wyn G Lewis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher P Twine; Wyn G Lewis; Xavier Escofet; David Bosanquet; S Ashley Roberts Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David E Gannett; Ron F Wolf; Gary W Takahashi; Jeannie Louie; Rick C Wagner; Fred S Ey; Michael M Owens; William E Johnson; David W Cook; Roger E Alberty Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2007-07