Literature DB >> 15743358

Endoscopic ultrasound errors in esophageal cancer.

Gregory Zuccaro1, Thomas W Rice, John J Vargo, John R Goldblum, Lisa A Rybicki, John A Dumot, David J Adelstein, Patricia A Trolli, Eugene H Blackstone.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous assessments of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) classification of esophageal cancer are dominated by symptomatic patients with advanced stage disease. Fewer data exist on EUS errors in a cohort balanced between early and advanced disease.
PURPOSE: Assess EUS errors in classification of esophageal cancer in a more balanced cohort, and identify clinical and tumor characteristics associated with EUS errors.
METHODS: A total of 266 patients underwent EUS and esophagectomy without preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Pathologic classification of disease extent: 108 (41%) tumors were confined to the esophageal wall (pTis-pT2, pN0, pM0); 158 (59%) were advanced beyond (pT3-pT4, pN1, or pM1). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify correlates of error in T classification and disease extent using 10 clinical and tumor characteristics (gender, age, dysphagia, weight loss, tumor length, location, traversability, morphology, histopathologic type, and histologic grade).
RESULTS: EUS erroneously predicted pathologic T (pT) in 119 patients (45%). When T classification was dichotomized into tumors whose depth of invasion was not beyond the muscularis propria (pTis-pT2) and those beyond (pT3-pT4), errors occurred in 42 patients (16%). EUS erroneously predicted N classification in 67 patients (25%), and was insensitive to the presence of distant metastases. EUS misclassified disease extent in 40 patients (15%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that weight loss and tumor length were the only clinical and tumor characteristics correlated with EUS errors; more weight loss was associated with decreased odds of misclassification, while the odds of misclassification were four to six times greater for intermediate length tumors than for shorter tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS errors, particularly in predicting pT, are more frequent than previously reported. Weight loss and tumor length are the only clinical and tumor characteristics correlated with EUS errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15743358     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41167.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  19 in total

1.  The use of endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal disease.

Authors:  Gregory Zuccaro
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2007-03

Review 2.  Endoscopic resection of early oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Oliver Pech; Andrea May; Thomas Rabenstein; Christian Ell
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Prognostic significance of endoluminal ultrasound-defined disease length and tumor volume (EDTV) for patients with the diagnosis of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Christopher P Twine; S Ashley Roberts; Wyn G Lewis; B Vicki Dave; Claire E Rawlinson; David Chan; Mark Robinson; Tom D Crosby
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Clinical T2N0M0 carcinoma of thoracic esophagus.

Authors:  Timothy D Wagner; Nikhil Khushalani; Gary Y Yang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  The role of induction therapy.

Authors:  Jacob R Moremen; Elaine N Skopelja; DuyKhanh P Ceppa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  The impact of time elapsed between endoscopic ultrasound and esophagectomy on concordance of ultrasonographic and pathologic staging of esophageal malignancy.

Authors:  Jessica M Fisher; Heiko Pohl; Stuart R Gordon; Timothy B Gardner
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06-19       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Accuracy of hydro-multidetector row CT in the local T staging of oesophageal cancer compared to postoperative histopathological results.

Authors:  Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Wolfgang Matzek; Susanne Baroud; Nina Bastati; Johannes Zacherl; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Michael Hejna; Fritz Wrba; Michael Weber; Christian J Herold; Richard M Gore
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Prospective comparison of the perceived preoperative computed tomographic, endosonographic and histopathological stage of oesophageal cancer related to body mass indices.

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

9.  Correlation between endoscopic forceps biopsies and endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic ultrasound in patients with Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and early cancer.

Authors:  Prashanthi N Thota; Alaa Sada; Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Sunguk Jang; Rocio Lopez; John R Goldblum; Xiuli Liu; John A Dumot; John Vargo; Gregory Zuccarro
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Depth of submucosal invasion does not predict lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Rami J Badreddine; Ganapathy A Prasad; Jason T Lewis; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kelly T Dunagan; Kenneth K Wang
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.