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.
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.
Authors: Kanwar R Gill; Marwan S Ghabril; Laith H Jamil; Muhammad K Hasan; Rebecca B McNeil; Timothy A Woodward; Massimo Raimondo; Brenda J Hoffman; Robert H Hawes; Joseph Romagnuolo; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Lawrence R Kleinberg; Paul J Catalano; Arlene A Forastiere; Steven M Keller; Edith P Mitchel; Pramila Rani Anne; Al B Benson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Traves D Crabtree; Andrzej S Kosinski; Varun Puri; William Burfeind; Ankit Bharat; G Alexander Patterson; Wayne Hofstetter; Bryan F Meyers Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Paolo G Arcidiacono; Xin-Wu Cui; Marc Giovannini; Michael Hocke; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Adrian Saftoiu; Siyu Sun; Liliana Chiorean Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2015 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: J Araujo; E Bories; F Caillol; C Pesenti; J Guiramand; F F Poizat; G Monges; P Ries; J L Raoul; J R Delpero; M Giovannini Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.628