Endosonography for Preoperative Locoregional Staging of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer

Grimm, H; Binmoeller, Kenneth F.; Hamper, K.; Koch, Johannes; Henne‐Bruns, Doris; Soehendra, Nib

doi:10.1055/s-2007-1010297

Cited by 178 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It utilises an echo-endoscope which is able to visualise the individual histological layers of the oesophagus. The number of lymph nodes detected by this method correlates significantly with 5-year survival rates [24] and EUS detects more locoregional node involvement than CT or PET [25][26][27]. Preoperative M A N U S C R I P T…”

Section: Endoscopic Ultrasound (Eus)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Lymph node metastases and prognosis in oesophageal carcinoma – A systematic review

Kayani

Zacharakis

Ahmed

et al. 2011

European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oesophageal cancer is the seventh most common cause of cancer-related death in the developed world and the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma is now the fastest growing of any gastrointestinal cancer. Lymph node involvement is the single most important prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer. Imaging to determine the extent of lymph node involvement and plan treatment often requires a combination of modalities to avoid under-staging. The seventh edition of the staging system released by the International Union Against Cancer (IUCC) has stratified lymph node involvement according to the number of lymph nodes involved and redefined its groupings for location of metastatic lymph node involvement. This review discusses the prognostic and treatment implications of these modifications and explores micrometastatic lymph node involvement, capsular infiltration and lymph node ratio as possible additions to the staging system.

show abstract

Section: Endoscopic Ultrasound (Eus)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Lymph node metastases and prognosis in oesophageal carcinoma – A systematic review

Kayani

Zacharakis

Ahmed

et al. 2011

European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, 31 articles on EUS for regional lymph node metastases (Tio et al, 1990;Botet et al, 1991;Rice et al, 1991;Ziegler et al, 1991;Dittler and Siewert, 1993;Grimm et al, 1993;Greenberg et al, 1994;Yoshikane et al, 1994;Binmoeller et al, 1995;Hasegawa et al, 1996;Hunerbein et al, 1996;Natsugoe et al, 1996;Pham et al, 1998;Vickers, 1998;Bowrey et al, 1999;Catalano et al, 1999;Nishimaki et al, 1999;Salminen et al, 1999;Choi et al, 2000;Nesje et al, 2000;Richards et al, 2000;Shinkai et al, 2000;Vazquez-Sequeiros et al, 2001Rasanen et al, 2003;Wu et al, 2003;Heeren et al, 2004;Sihvo et al, 2004;DeWitt et al, 2005;Lowe et al, 2005;Pedrazzani et al, 2005) and five articles on EUS for celiac lymph node metastases were included (Binmoeller et al, 1995;Catalano et al, 1999;Eloubeidi et al, 2001;Vazquez-Sequeiros et al, 2001;Parmar et al, 2002) (Table 1). For CT, the literature search gave 1091 hits.…”

Section: Literature Search and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in staging of oesophageal cancer. PubMed was searched to identify English-language articles published before January 2006 and reporting on diagnostic performance of EUS, CT, and/or FDG-PET in oesophageal cancer patients. Articles were included if absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, falsepositive, and true-negative test results were available or derivable for regional, celiac, and abdominal lymph node metastases and/or distant metastases. Sensitivities and specificities were pooled using a random effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to study potential effects of study and patient characteristics. Random effects pooled sensitivities of EUS, CT, and FDG-PET for regional lymph node metastases were 0. .86 -0.96) for CT, respectively. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET for distant metastases was significantly higher than that of CT, which was not significantly affected by study and patient characteristics. The results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET each play a distinctive role in the detection of metastases in oesophageal cancer patients. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is most sensitive, whereas CT and FDG-PET are more specific tests. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET has probably a higher sensitivity than CT. Its combined use could however be of clinical value, with FDG-PET detecting possible metastases and CT confirming or excluding their presence and precisely determining the location(s).

show abstract

“…This approach is particularly useful in evaluating invasion of local disease, especially esophageal cancer. EUS has been shown to detect more locoregional node involvement than CT or PET, with a higher sensitivity [17,18] . The accuracy of EUS to determine tumor depth has also been estimated to be quite accurate [18][19][20] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EUS has been shown to detect more locoregional node involvement than CT or PET, with a higher sensitivity [17,18] . The accuracy of EUS to determine tumor depth has also been estimated to be quite accurate [18][19][20] . However, studies vary as to the accuracy of EUS in both the depth of local disease, nodal involvement, and the detection of distant metastases [21][22][23][24] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Puli¹,

Jb²,

Ml³

et al. 2008

WJG

331

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the staging of esophageal cancer. METHODS:Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Articles were searched in Medline and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS:Forty-nine studies (n = 2558) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS to diagnose T1 was 81.6% (95% CI: 77.8-84.9) and 99.4% (95% CI: 99.0-99.7), respectively. To diagnose T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92.4% (95% CI: 89.2-95.0) and specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 96.6-98.0). With Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA), sensitivity of EUS to diagnose N stage improved from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 96.7% (95% CI: 92.4-98.9). The P value for the χ 2 test of heterogeneity for all pooled estimates was > 0.10. CONCLUSION:EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity in accurately diagnosing the TN stage of esophageal cancer. EUS performs better with advanced (T4) than early (T1) disease. FNA substantially improves the sensitivity and specificity of EUS in evaluating N stage disease. EUS should be strongly considered for staging esophageal cancer.

show abstract

Endosonography for Preoperative Locoregional Staging of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer

Cited by 178 publications

References 0 publications

Lymph node metastases and prognosis in oesophageal carcinoma – A systematic review

Lymph node metastases and prognosis in oesophageal carcinoma – A systematic review

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About