Jung Kim1, Sang Gyun Kim2, Hyunsoo Chung1, Joo Hyun Lim3, Ji Min Choi3, Jae Yong Park4, Hyo-Joon Yang5, Seung Jun Han1, Sooyeon Oh1, Min Seong Kim1, Hyun Ju Kim1, Hyoungju Hong1, Hee Jong Lee1, Jue Lie Kim1, Eunwoo Lee1, Hyun Chae Jung1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Daehangno 101, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Daehangno 101, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. harley@snu.ac.kr. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative tumor staging of gastric cancer is indispensable with expansion of indications for laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection. It is important to distinguish mucosal cancer (T1a) in smaller lesion and differentiate early gastric cancer (EGC) in larger lesion considering endoscopic resection indication and laparoscopic surgery indication. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the decision of treatment strategy of gastric cancer compared with pathological staging. METHODS: The patients who underwent EUS and surgical or endoscopic resection for gastric cancer were retrospectively reviewed between September 2005 and February 2016. The depth of tumor invasion (T staging) by EUS was compared with the pathological staging after endoscopic or surgical resection. RESULTS: A total of 6084 patients were finally analyzed. The accuracy rates for T1a and EGC were 75.0 and 89.4%, respectively. The overall accuracy of T staging by EUS was 66.3% when divided by T1a, T1b, and over T2. The accuracy of EUS prior to endoscopic resection was 75.1% in absolute indication and 73.1% in expanded criteria, respectively. The accuracy rates for T1a with lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and EGC with lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS were 84.6 and 83.2%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, presence of ulcer, large tumor size, and radial EUS were associated with overestimation, and small tumor size and miniprobe were associated with underestimation in T staging. CONCLUSIONS: EUS showed the high accuracy of 84.6% for T1a in lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and 83.2% for EGC in lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS, respectively. EUS can be a complementary diagnostic method to determine endoscopic or surgical treatment modality.
BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative tumor staging of gastric cancer is indispensable with expansion of indications for laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection. It is important to distinguish mucosal cancer (T1a) in smaller lesion and differentiate early gastric cancer (EGC) in larger lesion considering endoscopic resection indication and laparoscopic surgery indication. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the decision of treatment strategy of gastric cancer compared with pathological staging. METHODS: The patients who underwent EUS and surgical or endoscopic resection for gastric cancer were retrospectively reviewed between September 2005 and February 2016. The depth of tumor invasion (T staging) by EUS was compared with the pathological staging after endoscopic or surgical resection. RESULTS: A total of 6084 patients were finally analyzed. The accuracy rates for T1a and EGC were 75.0 and 89.4%, respectively. The overall accuracy of T staging by EUS was 66.3% when divided by T1a, T1b, and over T2. The accuracy of EUS prior to endoscopic resection was 75.1% in absolute indication and 73.1% in expanded criteria, respectively. The accuracy rates for T1a with lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and EGC with lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS were 84.6 and 83.2%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, presence of ulcer, large tumor size, and radial EUS were associated with overestimation, and small tumor size and miniprobe were associated with underestimation in T staging. CONCLUSIONS: EUS showed the high accuracy of 84.6% for T1a in lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and 83.2% for EGC in lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS, respectively. EUS can be a complementary diagnostic method to determine endoscopic or surgical treatment modality.
Authors: Srinivas-Reddy Puli; Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy; Matthew L Bechtold; Mainor R Antillon; Jamal A Ibdah Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jong Yeul Lee; Il Ju Choi; Chan Gyoo Kim; Soo-Jeong Cho; Myeong-Cherl Kook; Keun Won Ryu; Young-Woo Kim Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Juliana M Costa; Bruno Gonçalves; Maria Miguel Gomes; Dália Fernandes; Raquel Gonçalves; João B Soares Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.623