M L Malmstrøm1,2, I Gögenur3, L B Riis4, H Hassan5, T W Klausen6, T Perner7, A Săftoiu8, P Vilmann5. 1. Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. malmstroem@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Køge, Denmark. malmstroem@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Køge, Denmark. 4. Department of Pathology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. 5. Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. 6. Department of Hematology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. 7. Department of Radiology, Zealand University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Roskilde, Denmark. 8. Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With an increasing demand for more accurate preoperative staging methods for colon cancer, we aimed to compare preoperative tumour (T)- and nodal (N)-stage in patients with left-sided colon cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) with post-operative histology as gold standard. METHODS: A total of 44 patients were prospectively recruited at Herlev and Roskilde University Hospitals during November 2014-January 2016. Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis and underwent EUS, CT and surgery within 2 weeks. Diagnostic values were evaluated for "low risk" (T1+T2+T3 with ≤5 mm extramural invasion) and "high risk" (T3 with >5 mm of extramural spread + T4) colonic cancer. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity in "low risk" colonic cancer evaluated with EUS was 0.90 [0.74;0.98] and 0.75 [0.19;0.99] and with CT 0.96 [0.80;0.99] and 0.25 [<0.01;0.81]. EUS and CT were poor in predicting N0 or N+ disease. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of EUS and CT were good and comparable regarding T-stage evaluation, while EUS had a significantly higher specificity in the evaluation of "low risk" tumours. The results obtained for "high risk" colonic cancer were difficult to evaluate due to small patient numbers. EUS could be considered as a supplement to CT scans in selecting patients for neoadjuvant therapies, or local transmural treatment, in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02324023.
PURPOSE: With an increasing demand for more accurate preoperative staging methods for colon cancer, we aimed to compare preoperative tumour (T)- and nodal (N)-stage in patients with left-sided colon cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) with post-operative histology as gold standard. METHODS: A total of 44 patients were prospectively recruited at Herlev and Roskilde University Hospitals during November 2014-January 2016. Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis and underwent EUS, CT and surgery within 2 weeks. Diagnostic values were evaluated for "low risk" (T1+T2+T3 with ≤5 mm extramural invasion) and "high risk" (T3 with >5 mm of extramural spread + T4) colonic cancer. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity in "low risk" colonic cancer evaluated with EUS was 0.90 [0.74;0.98] and 0.75 [0.19;0.99] and with CT 0.96 [0.80;0.99] and 0.25 [<0.01;0.81]. EUS and CT were poor in predicting N0 or N+ disease. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of EUS and CT were good and comparable regarding T-stage evaluation, while EUS had a significantly higher specificity in the evaluation of "low risk" tumours. The results obtained for "high risk" colonic cancer were difficult to evaluate due to small patient numbers. EUS could be considered as a supplement to CT scans in selecting patients for neoadjuvant therapies, or local transmural treatment, in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02324023.
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: S Dighe; I Swift; L Magill; K Handley; R Gray; P Quirke; D Morton; M Seymour; B Warren; G Brown Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Srinivas R Puli; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Matthew L Bechtold; Abhishek Choudhary; Mainor R Antillon; William R Brugge Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mariana M Gersak; Radu Badea; Florin Graur; Nadim Al Hajja; Luminita Furcea; Sorin M Dudea Journal: Med Ultrason Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Radu Badea; Mariana M Gersak; Sorin M Dudea; Florin Graur; Nadim Al Hajjar; Luminita Furcea Journal: Med Ultrason Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Chris Hunter; Helena Blake; Nelesh Jeyadevan; Muti Abulafi; Ian Swift; Paul Toomey; Gina Brown Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.039