BACKGROUND: Worldwide, esophageal cancer ranks fifth in the mortality rate regarding tumor locations. EUS is an essential tool in the evaluation of these patients allowing accurate staging and permitting stratified treatment options. AIM. We have studied prospectively the impact of EUS in the evaluation and decision for therapy of patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed in our center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2001 through March 2006, 220 patients were hospitalized at the Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Fundeni Clinical Institute, with the diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Out of the 220 patients, 41 patients, with no major comorbidities contraindicating esophagectomy already having been screened by abdominal and thoracic CT to disclose distant metastases, had EUS with the definite purpose of staging esophageal carcinoma and selecting adequate therapy. Assuming that without preoperative staging by EUS, all 41 patients in the study group would have been offered surgical treatment, we evaluated the number of patients and the modality in which EUS resulted in changes to the therapeutic plan. RESULTS: Depth of invasion was recorded for the 41 patients as follows: T1 in 2 patients (4.9%), T2 in 6 patients (14.6%), T3 in 24 patients (58.5%), and T4 in 10 patients (22%). Regional lymph node (N) status as determined by EUS criteria was as follows: N0 in 7 patients (17%) and N1 in 34 patients (83%). Assessment of distant metastases (M) was recorded showing 4 patients with celiac axis lymph nodes metastases (M1). Preoperative EUS staging changed the decision for surgery in 18 of 41 patients (44%) (p<0.0001) and allowed primary esophagectomy in only 6 patients (15%) (p<0.0001). Compared to histopathology, the overall accuracy of EUS staging for pT1 and pT2 was 80% for staging pT3 and pT4 77% and for lymph node evaluation was approximately 75%. CONCLUSION: Esophageal EUS offers useful information to clinicians caring for patients with esophageal cancer, impacts clinical decision making, and should be used in appropriate settings to plan patients' care.
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, esophageal cancer ranks fifth in the mortality rate regarding tumor locations. EUS is an essential tool in the evaluation of these patients allowing accurate staging and permitting stratified treatment options. AIM. We have studied prospectively the impact of EUS in the evaluation and decision for therapy of patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed in our center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2001 through March 2006, 220 patients were hospitalized at the Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Fundeni Clinical Institute, with the diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Out of the 220 patients, 41 patients, with no major comorbidities contraindicating esophagectomy already having been screened by abdominal and thoracic CT to disclose distant metastases, had EUS with the definite purpose of staging esophageal carcinoma and selecting adequate therapy. Assuming that without preoperative staging by EUS, all 41 patients in the study group would have been offered surgical treatment, we evaluated the number of patients and the modality in which EUS resulted in changes to the therapeutic plan. RESULTS: Depth of invasion was recorded for the 41 patients as follows: T1 in 2 patients (4.9%), T2 in 6 patients (14.6%), T3 in 24 patients (58.5%), and T4 in 10 patients (22%). Regional lymph node (N) status as determined by EUS criteria was as follows: N0 in 7 patients (17%) and N1 in 34 patients (83%). Assessment of distant metastases (M) was recorded showing 4 patients with celiac axis lymph nodes metastases (M1). Preoperative EUS staging changed the decision for surgery in 18 of 41 patients (44%) (p<0.0001) and allowed primary esophagectomy in only 6 patients (15%) (p<0.0001). Compared to histopathology, the overall accuracy of EUS staging for pT1 and pT2 was 80% for staging pT3 and pT4 77% and for lymph node evaluation was approximately 75%. CONCLUSION: Esophageal EUS offers useful information to clinicians caring for patients with esophageal cancer, impacts clinical decision making, and should be used in appropriate settings to plan patients' care.
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
Authors: Mark Radlinski; Linda W Martin; Dustin M Walters; Patrick Northup; Andrew Y Wang; Terri Rodee; Bryan G Sauer; Vanessa M Shami Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.895
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; Jonathan D Barry; Guy R J Blackshaw; Tom D Crosby; S Ashley Roberts; Wyn G Lewis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584