BACKGROUND: To fully evaluate patients with esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), the transducer must pass through the entire tumor to the cardia to scan the celiac axis. Dilation may be necessary. Published information suggests that dilation with EUS carries a sizeable risk. METHODS: In order to assess the complication rate associated with dilation prior to EUS in patients with esophageal cancer and the clinical significance of dilation for complete EUS staging, we reviewed the records of all patients who had undergone EUS for esophageal cancer. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent EUS staging of esophageal cancer. Thirty-nine (62%) had lesions through which the EUS scope was passable (Group I). Ten (16%) patients (Group II) had lesions through which an EUS scope (diameter 13 mm) was unable to pass even after dilation. Fourteen patients (22%) had lesions that were dilated to allow passage of the EUS scope (Group III). All patients in Groups II and III had confirmation of EUS staging by CT and/or surgery. In Group II, five patients had tumors defined as T4 (50%) and five as T3 (50%). In Group III, nine (64%) had T4 tumors, four (29%) had T3, and one (7.7%) had T2. No complications were encountered in any group. CONCLUSION: EUS, either alone or after dilation, is a safe procedure and the complete EUS examination with celiac node visualization adds prognostically significant information.
BACKGROUND: To fully evaluate patients with esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), the transducer must pass through the entire tumor to the cardia to scan the celiac axis. Dilation may be necessary. Published information suggests that dilation with EUS carries a sizeable risk. METHODS: In order to assess the complication rate associated with dilation prior to EUS in patients with esophageal cancer and the clinical significance of dilation for complete EUS staging, we reviewed the records of all patients who had undergone EUS for esophageal cancer. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent EUS staging of esophageal cancer. Thirty-nine (62%) had lesions through which the EUS scope was passable (Group I). Ten (16%) patients (Group II) had lesions through which an EUS scope (diameter 13 mm) was unable to pass even after dilation. Fourteen patients (22%) had lesions that were dilated to allow passage of the EUS scope (Group III). All patients in Groups II and III had confirmation of EUS staging by CT and/or surgery. In Group II, five patients had tumors defined as T4 (50%) and five as T3 (50%). In Group III, nine (64%) had T4 tumors, four (29%) had T3, and one (7.7%) had T2. No complications were encountered in any group. CONCLUSION: EUS, either alone or after dilation, is a safe procedure and the complete EUS examination with celiac node visualization adds prognostically significant information.
Authors: Brian C Jacobson; Vanessa M Shami; Douglas O Faigel; Alberto Larghi; Michel Kahaleh; Charles Dye; Marcos Pedrosa; Irving Waxman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Srinivas R Puli; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Matthew L Bechtold; Mainor R Antillon; Jamal A Ibdah Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Maria Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Bertrand Napoléon; Siegbert Faiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742