BACKGROUND: It is well known that a learning curve exists for performing EUS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the number of EUS investigations performed in a center affects the results of esophageal cancer staging. DESIGN: We compared EUS in the evaluation of T stage and the presence of regional and celiac lymph nodes in a low-volume center where <50 EUS/endoscopist/y were performed with reported results from 7 high-volume EUS centers. SETTING: A reference center for esophageal cancer (>90 cases/y) but a low-volume center for EUS when it comes to individual endoscopists. PATIENTS: From 1994 to 2003, 244 patients underwent EUS, without specific measures to pass a stenotic tumor or FNA and with postoperative TNM stage as the criterion standard in the low-volume EUS center. In the high-volume centers, 670 EUS investigations for esophageal cancer were performed, if needed, with dilation, and with postoperative TNM stage and/or FNA as the criterion standard. INTERVENTIONS: Retrospective analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS for esophageal cancer staging. RESULTS: In the low-volume center, results of EUS for T3 staging in patients in whom passage of the EUS probe was possible were almost comparable for sensitivity (85% vs 88%-94%) but were lower for specificity (57% vs 75%-90%), whereas both sensitivity (58% vs 75%-90%) and specificity (87% vs 94%-97%) for T1 or T2 stages were lower than those reported in the high-volume centers. In the low-volume center, sensitivities of EUS for regional (45% vs 63%-89%) and celiac (19% vs 72%-83%) lymph nodes were lower, whereas specificities (75% vs 63%-82% and 99% vs 85%-100%, respectively) were comparable with those from high-volume centers. Results in the low-volume EUS center were worse if the EUS probe could not pass the stricture, which occurred in almost 30% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Both FNA and dilation before EUS for stenotic tumors were not performed in the low-volume EUS center. CONCLUSIONS: The results of EUS performed in a low-volume EUS center compared unfavorably with those reported from high-volume EUS centers. The results of this study suggest that preoperative staging by EUS should be performed by experienced and dedicated EUS endoscopists to optimize staging of esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: It is well known that a learning curve exists for performing EUS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the number of EUS investigations performed in a center affects the results of esophageal cancer staging. DESIGN: We compared EUS in the evaluation of T stage and the presence of regional and celiac lymph nodes in a low-volume center where <50 EUS/endoscopist/y were performed with reported results from 7 high-volume EUS centers. SETTING: A reference center for esophageal cancer (>90 cases/y) but a low-volume center for EUS when it comes to individual endoscopists. PATIENTS: From 1994 to 2003, 244 patients underwent EUS, without specific measures to pass a stenotic tumor or FNA and with postoperative TNM stage as the criterion standard in the low-volume EUS center. In the high-volume centers, 670 EUS investigations for esophageal cancer were performed, if needed, with dilation, and with postoperative TNM stage and/or FNA as the criterion standard. INTERVENTIONS: Retrospective analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS for esophageal cancer staging. RESULTS: In the low-volume center, results of EUS for T3 staging in patients in whom passage of the EUS probe was possible were almost comparable for sensitivity (85% vs 88%-94%) but were lower for specificity (57% vs 75%-90%), whereas both sensitivity (58% vs 75%-90%) and specificity (87% vs 94%-97%) for T1 or T2 stages were lower than those reported in the high-volume centers. In the low-volume center, sensitivities of EUS for regional (45% vs 63%-89%) and celiac (19% vs 72%-83%) lymph nodes were lower, whereas specificities (75% vs 63%-82% and 99% vs 85%-100%, respectively) were comparable with those from high-volume centers. Results in the low-volume EUS center were worse if the EUS probe could not pass the stricture, which occurred in almost 30% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Both FNA and dilation before EUS for stenotic tumors were not performed in the low-volume EUS center. CONCLUSIONS: The results of EUS performed in a low-volume EUS center compared unfavorably with those reported from high-volume EUS centers. The results of this study suggest that preoperative staging by EUS should be performed by experienced and dedicated EUS endoscopists to optimize staging of esophageal cancer.
Authors: Meike M C Hirdes; Matthijs P Schwartz; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Noël J Schlösser; Daisy M D S Sie-Go; Menno A Brink; Bas Oldenburg; Peter D Siersema; Frank P Vleggaar Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ronald E Kumon; Michael J Pollack; Ashley L Faulx; Kayode Olowe; Farees T Farooq; Victor K Chen; Yun Zhou; Richard C K Wong; Gerard A Isenberg; Michael V Sivak; Amitabh Chak; Cheri X Deng Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Richard van Hillegersberg; Frederiek M Lever; Irene M Lips; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Gert J Meijer; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Marco van Vulpen; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Cai Xu; David V Fried; Lucas Goense; Laurence E Court; Steven H Lin Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241