Ryan P Merkow1, Gabriel Herrera1, Debra A Goldman2, Hans Gerdes3, Mark A Schattner3, Arnold J Markowitz3, Vivian E Strong1, Murray F Brennan1, Daniel G Coit4. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. coitd@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a guideline-recommended diagnostic test to estimate pretreatment clinical stage in gastric cancer. The impact of EUS to discriminate long-term outcomes has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of our study were to (1) evaluate the association between EUS and pathologic stage; (2) evaluate the ability of EUS to predict disease-specific survival (DSS); and (3) determine how neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) affects these relationships. METHODS: A prospective gastric cancer database at a tertiary care cancer center identified 734 patients who underwent curative intent resection. Patients were separated into EUS low-risk (T1-2, N0) and EUS high-risk (T3-4 Nany, or Tany N+) groups. Agreement statistics and 5-year DSS were estimated stratified by NCT. RESULTS: Between 1987 and 2015, 68% (502/734) of patients were not treated with NCT. Among these patients, percentage agreement between EUS and pathology was moderate (individual T stage: 52%; N stage: 70%; risk group: 73%). EUS accurately estimated pathologic risk group in 73% (365/502) of patients, whereas it overestimated pathologic risk group in 19% (93/502) of patients and underestimated risk in 8% (41/502) of patients. EUS in non-NCT staging was able to discriminate DSS for T stage (hazard ratio [HR] 5.07, p < 0.05), N stage (HR 3.58, p < 0.05), and risk group (HR 6.35, p < 0.05). Among patients treated with NCT, EUS was unable to discriminate DSS for T stage (HR 0.94, p > 0.05), N stage (HR 1.46, p > 0.05) and risk group (HR 0.50, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment clinical staging based on EUS alone could lead to over- or under treatment in 27% of patients and can discriminate DSS in NCT-naive patients. EUS should be used in the context of other validated clinical risk tools.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a guideline-recommended diagnostic test to estimate pretreatment clinical stage in gastric cancer. The impact of EUS to discriminate long-term outcomes has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of our study were to (1) evaluate the association between EUS and pathologic stage; (2) evaluate the ability of EUS to predict disease-specific survival (DSS); and (3) determine how neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) affects these relationships. METHODS: A prospective gastric cancer database at a tertiary care cancer center identified 734 patients who underwent curative intent resection. Patients were separated into EUS low-risk (T1-2, N0) and EUS high-risk (T3-4 Nany, or Tany N+) groups. Agreement statistics and 5-year DSS were estimated stratified by NCT. RESULTS: Between 1987 and 2015, 68% (502/734) of patients were not treated with NCT. Among these patients, percentage agreement between EUS and pathology was moderate (individual T stage: 52%; N stage: 70%; risk group: 73%). EUS accurately estimated pathologic risk group in 73% (365/502) of patients, whereas it overestimated pathologic risk group in 19% (93/502) of patients and underestimated risk in 8% (41/502) of patients. EUS in non-NCT staging was able to discriminate DSS for T stage (hazard ratio [HR] 5.07, p < 0.05), N stage (HR 3.58, p < 0.05), and risk group (HR 6.35, p < 0.05). Among patients treated with NCT, EUS was unable to discriminate DSS for T stage (HR 0.94, p > 0.05), N stage (HR 1.46, p > 0.05) and risk group (HR 0.50, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment clinical staging based on EUS alone could lead to over- or under treatment in 27% of patients and can discriminate DSS in NCT-naive patients. EUS should be used in the context of other validated clinical risk tools.