BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanning is used routinely in the staging of oesophageal cancer to identify occult metastases not apparent on CT and changes the management in typically 3-18% patients. The authors aim to re-evaluate its role in the management of oesophageal cancer, investigating whether it is possible to identify a group of patients that will not benefit and can safely be spared from this investigation. METHODS: Consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing PET-CT staging between 2010 and 2013 were identified from a specialist modern multidisciplinary team database. Without knowledge of the PET-CT result, patients were stratified into low-risk or high-risk groups according to the likelihood of identifying metastatic disease on PET-CT based on specified criteria routinely available from endoscopy and CT reports. Clinical outcomes in the two groups were investigated. RESULTS: In 383 undergoing PET-CT, metastatic disease was identified in 52 (13.6%) patients. Eighty-three patients were stratified as low risk and 300 as high risk. None of the low-risk patients went on to have metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. Of the high-risk patients, 17% had metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest studies to date investigating the influence of staging PET-CT on management of patients with oesophageal cancer, the authors report a classification based on endoscopy/CT criteria is able to accurately stratify patients according to the risk of having metastatic disease. This could be used to avoid unnecessary PET-CT 22% of patients, saving cost, inconvenience and reducing potential delay to definitive treatment in this group.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanning is used routinely in the staging of oesophageal cancer to identify occult metastases not apparent on CT and changes the management in typically 3-18% patients. The authors aim to re-evaluate its role in the management of oesophageal cancer, investigating whether it is possible to identify a group of patients that will not benefit and can safely be spared from this investigation. METHODS: Consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing PET-CT staging between 2010 and 2013 were identified from a specialist modern multidisciplinary team database. Without knowledge of the PET-CT result, patients were stratified into low-risk or high-risk groups according to the likelihood of identifying metastatic disease on PET-CT based on specified criteria routinely available from endoscopy and CT reports. Clinical outcomes in the two groups were investigated. RESULTS: In 383 undergoing PET-CT, metastatic disease was identified in 52 (13.6%) patients. Eighty-three patients were stratified as low risk and 300 as high risk. None of the low-risk patients went on to have metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. Of the high-risk patients, 17% had metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest studies to date investigating the influence of staging PET-CT on management of patients with oesophageal cancer, the authors report a classification based on endoscopy/CT criteria is able to accurately stratify patients according to the risk of having metastatic disease. This could be used to avoid unnecessary PET-CT 22% of patients, saving cost, inconvenience and reducing potential delay to definitive treatment in this group.
Authors: Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Wolfgang Matzek; Susanne Baroud; Nina Bastati; Johannes Zacherl; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Michael Hejna; Fritz Wrba; Michael Weber; Christian J Herold; Richard M Gore Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: William H Allum; Jane M Blazeby; S Michael Griffin; David Cunningham; Janusz A Jankowski; Rachel Wong Journal: Gut Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Brigid A Bingham; Daniel A Hatef; Patricia Chevez-Barrios; Shanda H Blackmon; Min P Kim Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jan B F Hulscher; Johanna W van Sandick; Angela G E M de Boer; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Jan G P Tijssen; Paul Fockens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Herman van Dekken; Huug Obertop; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; G W Sloof; H Groen; P M M Bossuyt; P L Jager; E F Comans; H M van Dullemen; P Fockens; J Stoker; E J van der Jagt; J J B van Lanschot; J T M Plukker Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Richard G Berrisford; Wei-Lup Wong; David Day; Elizabeth Toy; Mark Napier; Keith Mitchell; Saj Wajed Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Fergus Noble; Luke Nolan; Adrian C Bateman; James P Byrne; Jamie J Kelly; Ian S Bailey; Donna M Sharland; Charlotte N Rees; Timothy J Iveson; Tim J Underwood; Andrew R Bateman Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Thomas K Varghese; Meghan R Flanagan; David R Flum; Veena Shankaran; Brant K Oelschlager; Michael S Mulligan; Douglas E Wood; Carlos A Pellegrini; Farhood Farjah Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2016-06