OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 64-multidetector CT (MDCT) for restaging of patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Results of pathological staging were correlated with those from 64-MDCT before and after neoadjuvant treatment in 35 patients using the American Joint Committee on Cancer/TNM classification (7th edition). CT response was determined using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) method, modified for one-dimensional tumour diameter measurement. RESULTS: 64-MDCT predicted T stage correctly in 34 % (12/35), overstaged in 49 % (17/35) and understaged in 17 % (6/35). Sensitivity/specificity values were as follows: T0, 20 %/92 %; T1-T2, 31 %/59 %; T3, 60 %/64 %; T4, 100 %/4 %. Negative predictive values for T3/T4 were 80 %/100 %. MDCT accurately predicted complete histopathological response in 20 % (accuracy 74 %) and overstaged in 80 %. Tumour regression grade was predicted correctly in only 8 % (2/25) and underestimated in 68 % (17/25). Accurate N stage was noted in 69 % (24/35). CONCLUSION: Although MDCT tends to be able to exclude advanced tumour stages (T3, T4) with a higher likelihood, the diagnostic accuracy of high resolution MDCT for restaging oesophageal cancer and assessing the response to neoadjuvant therapy has not improved in comparison to older-generation CT. Therefore, the future assessment of oesophageal tumour response should focus on combined morphologic and metabolic imaging. KEY POINTS: • Multidetector CT (MDCT) has been beneficial for the evaluation of many tumours. • However diagnostic accuracy for restaging oesophageal cancer has not improved with MDCT. • MDCT tends to be able to exclude advanced tumour stages (T3/T4). • MDCT has a low accuracy for determining lymph node metastasis. • Oesophageal tumour response should be assessed by combined morphological and metabolic imaging.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 64-multidetector CT (MDCT) for restaging of patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Results of pathological staging were correlated with those from 64-MDCT before and after neoadjuvant treatment in 35 patients using the American Joint Committee on Cancer/TNM classification (7th edition). CT response was determined using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) method, modified for one-dimensional tumour diameter measurement. RESULTS: 64-MDCT predicted T stage correctly in 34 % (12/35), overstaged in 49 % (17/35) and understaged in 17 % (6/35). Sensitivity/specificity values were as follows: T0, 20 %/92 %; T1-T2, 31 %/59 %; T3, 60 %/64 %; T4, 100 %/4 %. Negative predictive values for T3/T4 were 80 %/100 %. MDCT accurately predicted complete histopathological response in 20 % (accuracy 74 %) and overstaged in 80 %. Tumour regression grade was predicted correctly in only 8 % (2/25) and underestimated in 68 % (17/25). Accurate N stage was noted in 69 % (24/35). CONCLUSION: Although MDCT tends to be able to exclude advanced tumour stages (T3, T4) with a higher likelihood, the diagnostic accuracy of high resolution MDCT for restaging oesophageal cancer and assessing the response to neoadjuvant therapy has not improved in comparison to older-generation CT. Therefore, the future assessment of oesophageal tumour response should focus on combined morphologic and metabolic imaging. KEY POINTS: • Multidetector CT (MDCT) has been beneficial for the evaluation of many tumours. • However diagnostic accuracy for restaging oesophageal cancer has not improved with MDCT. • MDCT tends to be able to exclude advanced tumour stages (T3/T4). • MDCT has a low accuracy for determining lymph node metastasis. • Oesophageal tumour response should be assessed by combined morphological and metabolic imaging.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M van Heijl; S S K S Phoa; M I van Berge Henegouwen; J M T Omloo; B M Mearadji; G W Sloof; P M M Bossuyt; M C C M Hulshof; D J Richel; J J G H M Bergman; F J W Ten Kate; J Stoker; J J B van Lanschot Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: J F Griffith; A C Chan; L T Chow; S F Leung; Y H Lam; E Y Liang; S C Chung; C Metreweli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Thomas Ruhstaller; Miklos Pless; Daniel Dietrich; Helmut Kranzbuehler; Roger von Moos; Peter Moosmann; Michael Montemurro; Paul M Schneider; Daniel Rauch; Oliver Gautschi; Walter Mingrone; Lucas Widmer; Roman Inauen; Peter Brauchli; Viviane Hess Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul M Schneider; Stephan E Baldus; Ralf Metzger; Martin Kocher; Rudolf Bongartz; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Hartmut Schaefer; Juergen Thiele; Hans P Dienes; Rolf P Mueller; Arnulf H Hoelscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Paul M Schneider; Ralf Metzger; Hartmut Schaefer; Frank Baumgarten; Daniel Vallbohmer; Jan Brabender; Eva Wolfgarten; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Hans P Dienes; Arnulf H Hoelscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Angel C Rebollo Aguirre; Carlos Ramos-Font; Román Villegas Portero; Gary J R Cook; José M Llamas Elvira; Antonio Romero Tabares Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John M Findlay; Richard S Gillies; James M Franklin; Eugene J Teoh; Greg E Jones; Sara di Carlo; Fergus V Gleeson; Nicholas D Maynard; Kevin M Bradley; Mark R Middleton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Reeh; Tarik Ghadban; Faik G Uzunoglu; Michael F Nentwich; Maximilian Bockhorn; Klaus Pantel; Jakob R Izbicki; Yogesh K Vashist Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S E Vollenbrock; F E M Voncken; J M van Dieren; D M J Lambregts; M Maas; G J Meijer; L Goense; S Mook; K J Hartemink; P Snaebjornsson; L C Ter Beek; M Verheij; B M P Aleman; R G H Beets-Tan; A Bartels-Rutten Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 6.939