BackgroundThe separate value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multidetector computed tomography (CT), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the optimal sequence in staging esophageal cancer has not been investigated adequately.MethodsThe staging records of 216 consecutive operable patients with esophageal cancer were reviewed blindly. Different staging strategies were analyzed, and the likelihood ratio (LR) of each module was calculated conditionally on individual patient characteristics. A logistic regression approach was used to determine the most favorable staging strategy.ResultsInitial EUS results were not significantly related to the LRs of initial CT and FDG-PET results. The positive LR (LR+) of EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was 4, irrespective of CT and FDG-PET outcomes. The LR+ of FDG-PET varied from 13 (negative CT) to 6 (positive CT). The LR+ of CT ranged from 3–4 (negative FDG-PET) to 2–3 (positive FDG-PET). Age, histology, and tumor length had no significant impact on the LRs of the three diagnostic tests.ConclusionsThis study argues in favor of PET/CT rather than EUS as a predictor of curative resectability in esophageal cancer. EUS does not correspond with either CT or FDG-PET. LRs of FDG-PET were substantially different between subgroups of negative and positive CT results and vice versa.

No abstract

Target volume definition in modern radiotherapy is based on planning computed tomography (CT). So far, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has not been included in planning modality in volume definition of esophageal cancer. This study evaluates fusion of FDG-PET and CT in patients with esophageal cancer in terms of geographic misses and inter-observer variability in volume definition. In 28 esophageal cancer patients, gross, clinical and planning tumor volumes (GTV; CTV; PTV) were defined on planning CT by three radiation oncologists. After software-based emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) fusion, tumor delineations were redefined by the same radiation-oncologists. Concordance indexes (CCI's) for CT and PET/CT based GTV, CTV and PTV were calculated for each pair of observers. Incorporation of PET/CT modified tumor delineation in 17/28 subjects (61%) in cranial and/or caudal direction. Mean concordance indexes for CT-based CTV and PTV were 72 (55-86)% and 77 (61-88)%, respectively, vs. 72 (47-99)% and 76 (54-87)% for PET/CT-based CTV and PTV. Paired analyses showed no significant difference in CCI between CT and PET/CT. Combining FDG-PET and CT may improve target volume definition with less geographic misses, but without significant effects on inter-observer variability in esophageal cancer.

No abstract