BACKGROUND: The advantages of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT)-positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to survival for esophageal cancer patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the effects of EUS, CT-PET, and their combination on overall survival with respect to cases not receiving these procedures. METHODS: Patients who were ≥66 years old when diagnosed with esophageal cancer were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Cases were split into 4 analytic groups: EUS only (n = 318), CT-PET only (n = 853), EUS+CT-PET (n = 189), and no EUS or CT-PET (n = 2439). Survival times were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test for each group versus the no EUS or CT-PET group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that EUS, CT-PET, and EUS+CT-PET patients had improved survival for all stages (with the exception of stage 0 disease) in comparison with patients undergoing no EUS or CT-PET. Receipt of EUS increased the likelihood of receiving endoscopic therapies, esophagectomy, and chemoradiation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models showed that receipt of EUS was a significant predictor of improved 1- (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.59; P < .0001), 3- (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.66; P < .0001), and 5-year survival (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68). Similar results were noted when the results were stratified on the basis of histology and for the CT-PET and EUS+CT-PET groups. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of either EUS or CT-PET alone in esophageal cancer patients was associated with improved 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. Future studies should identify barriers to the dissemination of these staging modalities.
BACKGROUND: The advantages of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT)-positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to survival for esophageal cancerpatients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the effects of EUS, CT-PET, and their combination on overall survival with respect to cases not receiving these procedures. METHODS:Patients who were ≥66 years old when diagnosed with esophageal cancer were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Cases were split into 4 analytic groups: EUS only (n = 318), CT-PET only (n = 853), EUS+CT-PET (n = 189), and no EUS or CT-PET (n = 2439). Survival times were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test for each group versus the no EUS or CT-PET group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that EUS, CT-PET, and EUS+CT-PET patients had improved survival for all stages (with the exception of stage 0 disease) in comparison with patients undergoing no EUS or CT-PET. Receipt of EUS increased the likelihood of receiving endoscopic therapies, esophagectomy, and chemoradiation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models showed that receipt of EUS was a significant predictor of improved 1- (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.59; P < .0001), 3- (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.66; P < .0001), and 5-year survival (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68). Similar results were noted when the results were stratified on the basis of histology and for the CT-PET and EUS+CT-PET groups. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of either EUS or CT-PET alone in esophageal cancerpatients was associated with improved 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. Future studies should identify barriers to the dissemination of these staging modalities.
Authors: M A Eloubeidi; M B Wallace; B J Hoffman; M B Leveen; A Van Velse; R H Hawes; C E Reed Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Patrick E Young; Andrew B Gentry; Ruben D Acosta; Bruce D Greenwald; Mark Riddle Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Bryan F Meyers; Robert J Downey; Paul A Decker; Robert J Keenan; Barry A Siegel; Robert J Cerfolio; Rodney J Landreneau; Carolyn E Reed; Dennis M Balfe; Farrokh Dehdashti; Karla V Ballman; Valerie W Rusch; Joe B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Henderik L van Westreenen; Pierre A M Heeren; Hendrik M van Dullemen; Eric J van der Jagt; Pieter L Jager; Henk Groen; John Th M Plukker Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: F Fiorica; D Di Bona; F Schepis; A Licata; L Shahied; A Venturi; A M Falchi; A Craxì; C Cammà Journal: Gut Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Grigory G Karmazanovsky; Svetlana A Buryakina; Evgeny V Kondratiev; Qin Yang; Dmitry V Ruchkin; Dmitry V Kalinin Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Linda C Cummings; Tzuyung Doug Kou; Mark D Schluchter; Amitabh Chak; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R Taylor Ripley; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Rachel Grosser; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Prasad S Adusumilli; James Huang; David J Finley; Valerie W Rusch; Nabil P Rizk Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Carrie Luu; Marisa Amaral; Jason Klapman; Cynthia Harris; Khaldoun Almhanna; Sarah Hoffe; Jessica Frakes; Jose M Pimiento; Jacques P Fontaine Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Megan M Boniface; Sachin B Wani; Tracey E Schefter; Phillip J Koo; Cheryl Meguid; Stephen Leong; Jeffrey B Kaplan; Lisa J Wingrove; Martin D McCarter Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 3.989