Influence of the number of malignant regional lymph nodes detected by endoscopic ultrasonography on survival stratification in esophageal adenocarcinoma

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer (ECA) affects 1 in 125 men and 1 in 417 for women and accounts for 2.6% of all cancer related deaths in the United States. The associated survival rate depends on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis, making adequate work up and staging imperative. The 5-year survival rate for localized disease is 46.4%, regional disease is 25.6%, and distant/metastatic disease is 5.2%. Additionally, treatment is stage-dependent, making staging all that much important. For nonmetastatic transmural tumors (T3) and/or those that have locoregional lymph node involvement (N), neoadjuvant therapy is recommended. Conversely, for those who have earlier tumors, upfront surgical resection is reasonable. While positron emission tomography/computed tomography and other cross sectional imaging modalities are exceptional for detecting distant disease, they are inaccurate in staging locoregional disease. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has played a key role in the locoregional (T and N) staging of newly diagnosed ECA and has an evolving role in restaging after neoadjuvant therapy. There is even data to support that the use of EUS facilitates proper triaging of patients and may ultimately save money by avoiding unnecessary or futile treatment. This manuscript will review the current role of EUS on staging and restaging of ECA.

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal cancer staging

Since its advent in the 1980s endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has played an important role in the diagnosis, staging, and therapeutic management of various gastrointestinal malignancies. EUS has emerged as a vital tool in the evaluation of esophageal cancer as it provides a detailed view of the layers of the esophageal wall and surrounding tissues. This permits determination of tumor invasion depth and local lymph node metastases. It is the most sensitive and specific method available for locoregional staging of esophageal cancer. The information obtained via EUS is vital in determining the appropriate diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options. Thus, this article aims to present a review of the accuracy and utilization of EUS in the staging of esophageal cancer.

Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE New to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual for epithelial cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction are separate, temporally related cancer classifications: 1) before treatment decision (clinical); 2) after esophagectomy alone (pathologic); and 3) after preresection therapy followed by esophagectomy (postneoadjuvant pathologic). The addition of clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groupings was driven by a lack of correspondence of survival, and thus prognosis, between both clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic cancer categories (facts about the cancer) and pathologic categories. This was revealed by a machine-learning analysis of 6-continent data from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration, with consensus of the AJCC Upper GI Expert Panel. Survival is markedly affected by histopathologic cell type (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) in clinically and pathologically staged patients, requiring separate stage grouping for each cell type. However, postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groups are identical. For the future, more refined and granular data are needed. This requires: 1) more accurate clinical staging; 2) innovative solutions to pathologic staging challenges in endoscopically resected cancers; 3) integration of genomics into staging; and 4) precision cancer care with targeted therapy. It is the responsibility of the oncology team to accurately determine and record registry data, which requires eliminating both common errors and those related to incompleteness and inconsistency. Despite the new complexity of eighth edition staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction, these key concepts and new directions will facilitate precision cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:304-317. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Prognostic significance of the size and number of lymph nodes on pre and post neoadjuvant chemotherapy CT in patients with pN0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a 5-year follow-up study

The prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer improves by using neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). More patients obtain pathological N0 staging (pN0) after surgery. The heterogeneity of prognosis of these patients poses a great challenge of customizing therapeutic strategies for individual patients. The signs of lymph nodes on both pre and post NAC computer tomography (CT) scan can provide more information for evaluation. Therefore, we investigated a new approach to lymph node (LN)-survival analysis by using pre-/post-NAC CT in pN0 esophageal cancer. 79 patients undergone curative resection after NAC obtained pN0 staging. The long and short axis diameter of maximal lymph node (MaxLN) and LN number on pre-/post-NAC CT scans were recorded and assessed for predicting survival by univariate and multivariate survival analysis. The prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer was correlated with the LN size and number on pre-/post-NAC CT. The LN number on pre-NAC CT and short-axis diameter of MaxLN on post-NAC CT remained the independent predictor of overall survival. By using these two factors as classification criterion, N0b group included patients with LN number>4 on pre-NAC CT or short-axis diameter of MaxLN >7 mm on post-NAC CT and the rest patients were included in N0a group. N0a group had a significantly better overall survival than N0b group (5-year survival rate: 75.2% vs. 32.6%). The size and number of lymph node on pre-/post-NAC CT were reliable and important prognostic factors in patients with pN0 esophageal cancer. This new criterion could distinguish these patients into N0a and N0b, according to different prognosis.

8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of epithelial cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) presents separate classifications for clinical (cTNM), pathologic (pTNM), and postneoadjuvant (ypTNM) stage groups. Histopathologic cell type markedly affects survival of clinically and pathologically staged patients, requiring separate groupings for each cell type, but ypTNM groupings are identical for both cell types. Clinical categories, typically obtained by imaging with minimal histologic information, are limited by resolution of each method. Strengths and shortcomings of clinical staging methods should be recognized. Complementary cytology or histopathology findings may augment imaging and aid initial treatment decision-making. However, prognostication using clinical stage groups remains coarse and inaccurate compared with pTNM. Pathologic staging is losing its relevance for advanced-stage cancer as neoadjuvant therapy replaces esophagectomy alone. However, it remains relevant for early-stage cancers and as a staging and survival reference point. Although pathologic stage could facilitate decision-making, its use to direct postoperative adjuvant therapy awaits more effective treatment. Prognostication using pathologic stage groups is the most refined of all classifications. Postneoadjuvant staging (ypTNM) is introduced by the AJCC but not adopted by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). Drivers of this addition include absence of equivalent pathologic (pTNM) categories for categories peculiar to the postneoadjuvant state (ypT0N0-3M0 and ypTisN0-3M0), dissimilar stage group compositions, and markedly different survival profiles. Thus, prognostication is specific for patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. The role of ypTNM classification in additional treatment decision-making is currently limited. Precision cancer care advances are necessary for this information to be clinically useful.

The Role of Endosonography in the Staging of Gastrointestinal Cancers

Endosonography (EUS) enables the acquisition of clear images of the gastrointestinal tract wall and the surrounding structures. EUS enables much greater accuracy for staging decisions compared to computed tomography. Surgery for esophageal cancer has a high rate of morbidity and mortality, and it is important to decide on an appropriate treatment method through pre-surgical evaluation. Minimal invasive surgery is widely used for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, and endoscopic submucosal dissection is a safe treatment method for early cancer of the gastrointestinal tract that does not result in lymph node metastasis. EUS is essential for pre-surgical evaluation for all esophageal cancers. The use of EUS can effectively reduce unnecessary surgeries and thereby allow for appropriate treatment planning for patients. A number of different diagnostic modalities are available, but EUS is still the mainstay for pre-surgical evaluation of esophageal cancer. The role of EUS for early stomach cancer treatment as a tool for determining the need for endoscopic resection and for pre-surgical assessment is increasing.

Geographic distribution of regional metastatic nodes affects the outcome of trimodality-eligible patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Malignant nodes in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) portend a poor prognosis. We assessed the correlation of the distribution of nodes with the outcome of patients undergoing chemoradiation/surgery (trimodality therapy).

METHODS

We studied 209 L-EAC patients who had confirmed or suspicious nodes at baseline staging. All patients received trimodality therapy and were grouped according to the nodal geography: above the diaphragm (AD), below the diaphragm (BD), or above and below the diaphragm (ABD). Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the outcomes of the groups were assessed by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Patients were primarily Caucasian (91%) and male (93%), with a baseline stage III L-EAC (89%). The median follow-up was 2.8 years (range, 0.4-11.7). Of the 209 patients, 35% (n = 73) had AD nodes, 20% (n = 41) had BD nodes, and 45% (n = 95) had ABD nodes. ABD patients had a 5-year overall survival rate of 33%, whereas this rate was 55% in AD patients and 60% in BD patients (p = 0.02). Patients with a higher histology grade were also at a higher risk of relapse and had a poor survival (p < 0.01 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

L-EAC patients in the ABD group had the worst outcome after trimodality treatment compared to those in the AD or BD group. Novel strategies are needed for ABD patients.

Surgical indications and optimization of patients for resectable esophageal malignancies

Esophageal cancer is a devastating diagnosis with very dire long-term survival rates. This is largely due to its rather insidious progression, which leads to most patients being diagnosed with advanced disease. Recently, however, a greater understanding of the pathogenesis of esophageal malignancies has afforded surgeons and oncologists with new opportunities for intervention and management. Coupled with improvements in imaging, staging, and medical therapies, surgeons have continued to enhance their knowledge of the nuances of esophageal resection, which has resulted in the development of minimally invasive approaches with similar overall oncologic outcomes. This marriage of more efficacious induction therapy and diminished morbidity after esophagectomy offers new promise to patients diagnosed with this aggressive form of cancer. The following review will highlight these most recent advances and will offer insight into our own approach to patients with resectable esophageal malignancy.

Diagnosis and staging of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction

Esophageal/esophagogastric junction cancer staging in the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual is data driven and harmonized with gastric staging. New definitions are Tis, T4, regional lymph node, N, and M. Nonanatomic characteristics (histopathologic cell type, histologic grade, cancer location) and TNM classifications determine stage groupings. Classifications before treatment define clinical stage (cTNM or ycTNM). Current best clinical staging modalities include endoscopic ultrasonography for T and N and CT/PET for M. Classifications at resection define pathologic stage (pTNM or ypTNM). Accurate pathologic stage requires communication/cooperation between surgeon and pathologist. Classifications are defined at retreatment (rTNM) and autopsy (aTNM).

Long-term survival from adenocarcinoma of the esophagus after transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The effects of transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy on the long-term survival of patients who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus were compared, as were factors applicable in preoperative stratification of patient treatment.

METHODS

A cohort of 147 consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus was evaluated for esophagectomy between 1984 and 2000. The patients were followed prospectively and observed survival rates of patients with a transthoracic or transhiatal approach to esophagectomy were compared by standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and relative mortality ratio (RMR) using the expected survival of a matched Norwegian population.

RESULTS

A R0 resection was performed by transthoracic (n = 33) or a transhiatal (n = 55) esophagectomy in 88 (60%) patients with a median age of 61 (range: 35-77) and 70 (42-88) years, respectively (P <0.001). Tumor stages and other possible risk factors were similar in the two groups. Transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy resulted in a median survival time of 20.5 (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.4-57.6) and 16.4 (10.6-28.7) months, respectively. The respective survival rates were 31.2% and 27.8% by 5 years, and 21.3% and 16.6% by 10 years with an overall RMR of 1.14 (P = 0.63). Median survival time in the absence or presence of lymph node metastases was 74.0 (95% CI: 17.5-166.4) and 10.7 (7.9-14.9) months. The corresponding survival rates by 10 years with non-involved or involved nodes were 48.9% and 3.8% respectively (RMR 2.22, P = 0.007). Patients with a pT1-tumor were few and the survival rate was not very different from that of the general population (SMR = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.7-4.1). The median survival time of patients with a pT2-tumor was 30.4 (95% CI: 9.0-142) months and with a pT3-tumor 14 (9.2-16.4) months. The survival rates by 10 years among patients with a pT1 tumor were 57.0% (95% CI: 14.9-78.9), pT2 33.3% (11.8-52.2), and pT3 7.1% (1.9-15.5). The relative mortality for T3 stages compared to T1 stages was statistically significant (RMR = 3.22, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy are both effective approaches for treatment of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and survival of more than 10 years can be expected without adjuvant chemotherapy. However, increasing depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastases reduce life expectancy.

Prognostic significance of the endoscopic ultrasound defined lymph node metastasis count in esophageal cancer

The key prognostic factor which predicts outcome after esophagectomy for cancer is the number of malignant lymph node metastases, but data regarding the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in determining and predicting the metastatic lymph node count preoperatively are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of EUS defined lymph node metastasis count (eLNMC) in patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Two hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients (median age 63 years, 187 months) underwent specialist EUS followed by stage directed multidisciplinary treatment (183 esophagectomy [64 neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 19 neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy], 79 definitive chemoradiotherapy, and 5 palliative therapy). The eLNMC was subdivided into four groups (0, 1, 2 to 4, >4) and the primary measure of outcome was survival. Survival was related to EUS tumor (T) stage (P < 0.0001), EUS node (N) stage (P < 0.0001), EUS tumor length (p < 0.0001), and eLNMC (P < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed EUS tumor length (hazard ratio [HR] 1.071, 95% CI 1.008-1.138, P= 0.027) and eLNMC (HR 1.302, 95% CI 1.133-1.496, P= 0.0001) to be significantly and independently associated with survival. Median and 2-year survival for patients with 0, 1, 2-4, and >4 lymph node metastases were: 44 months and 71%, 36 months and 59%, 24 months and 50%, and 17 months and 32%, respectively. The total number of EUS defined lymph node metastases was an important and significant prognostic indicator.

Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: data-driven staging for the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Cancer Staging Manuals

BACKGROUND

Previous American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer (AJCC/UICC) stage groupings for esophageal cancer have not been data driven or harmonized with stomach cancer. At the request of the AJCC, worldwide data from 3 continents were assembled to develop data-driven, harmonized esophageal staging for the seventh edition of the AJCC/UICC cancer staging manuals.

METHODS

All-cause mortality among 4627 patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer who underwent surgery alone (no preoperative or postoperative adjuvant therapy) was analyzed by using novel random forest methodology to produce stage groups for which survival was monotonically decreasing, distinctive, and homogeneous.

RESULTS

For lymph node-negative pN0M0 cancers, risk-adjusted 5-year survival was dominated by pathologic tumor classification (pT) but was modulated by histopathologic cell type, histologic grade, and location. For lymph node-positive, pN+M0 cancers, the number of cancer-positive lymph nodes (a new pN classification) dominated survival. Resulting stage groupings departed from a simple, logical arrangement of TNM. Stage groupings for stage I and II adenocarcinoma were based on pT, pN, and histologic grade; and groupings for squamous cell carcinoma were based on pT, pN, histologic grade, and location. Stage III was similar for histopathologic cell types and was based only on pT and pN. Stage 0 and stage IV, by definition, were categorized as tumor in situ (Tis) (high-grade dysplasia) and pM1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer depends on the complex interplay of TNM classifications as well as nonanatomic factors, including histopathologic cell type, histologic grade, and cancer location. These features were incorporated into a data-driven staging of these cancers for the seventh edition of the AJCC/UICC cancer staging manuals.

Combined pretherapeutic endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography may predict survival of patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer

BACKGROUND

The combination of endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-LUS) is accurate for resectability assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC). But neither the ability of EUS/LUS to predict long-term prognosis nor the potential impact on patient survival using this selection strategy has been investigated. This prospective, single-center study evaluated whether pretherapeutic EUS-LUS stratification related to the prognosis in UGIC patients and whether patient selection by this strategy provided a prognostic outcome comparable with survival data from the literature.

METHODS

Each patient had a pretherapeutic tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage and a resectability assessment assigned based on EUS-LUS findings. Survival curves were constructed and compared for each of the EUS-LUS TNM stage and resectability groups at the end of the observation period. Finally, the R0 resection rate, median, and 5-year survival rates were compared with the literature.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 936 consecutive patients with esophageal (n = 256), gastric (n = 273), or pancreatic (n = 407) cancer. A statistically significant survival difference (p < 0.01) between the different TNM stages and resectability groups predicted by EUS-LUS was observed regardless of the cancer type. The poor prognosis for the patients with irresectable or disseminated UGIC was accurately predicted by EUS and LUS. The R0 resection rate as well as the median and 5-year survival rates were comparable with data from the literature.

CONCLUSION

The pretherapeutic EUS-LUS patient stratification related significantly to the final prognosis for UGIC patients. An EUS-LUS-based patient selection strategy seemed to provide a prognostic outcome similar to data from computed tomography (CT)-based populations.

An evaluation of the number of lymph nodes examined and survival for node-negative esophageal carcinoma: data from China

BACKGROUND

The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for esophageal cancer does not define the minimum number of lymph nodes (LNs) necessary for accurate nodal staging. This study aimed to seek the minimum number of LNs examined for adequate nodal staging of patients with node-negative esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 592 patients undergoing R0 resection with node-negative esophageal carcinoma between December 1996 and December 2004. The relationship between the total number of examined LNs and death from esophageal cancer was investigated by means of a scatterplot of this variable versus Martingale residuals from a Cox proportional hazard regression model without the variable of interest. A smoothed line fit of the scatterplot was applied to detect the reasonable cutoff point.

RESULTS

The patients were classified into four categories according to the number of examined LNs: < or =5, 6 to 9, 10 to 17, and > or =18. A reduced hazard ratio of death was observed with an increasing number of LNs examined. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 42.8% among patients with < or =5 LNs examined, compared with 52.6, 56.8, and 75% for those with 6-9 LNs, 10-17 LNs, and > or =18 LNs, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis suggested that female sex, lower grade of cell differentiation, lower T category and increasing number of examined LNs were independent factors favoring cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

At least 18 LNs should be resected for accurate staging of operable esophageal carcinoma. However, a validation from other institute is warranted.

Survival in patients with pancreatic cancer after the diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA

BACKGROUND

The expected survival after the EUS-FNA diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases from pancreatic cancer is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To report overall and 1-year survival in these patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort series.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive subjects with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer from June 1998 and March 2008 in whom EUS-FNA of the liver or ascitic fluid confirmed hepatic metastases or malignant ascites.

INTERVENTIONS

Calculation of survival after diagnosis by using the Social Security Death Index.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Survival after EUS-FNA diagnosis of stage IV pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA identified liver metastases and malignant ascites from primary pancreatic cancer in 75 and 13 patients, respectively, and all 88 died during follow-up. For all 88 patients, the 1-year survival rate and median survival were 3.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-10.4%) and 82 days (range 2-754 days), respectively. The 1-year survival rates for those with liver metastases (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-12.1%]) and for those with malignant ascites (0% [95% CI, 0-24.7%]) were similar (P = 1.0). The median survival for patients with liver metastases of 83 days (range 2-754 days) was similar to that for those with malignant ascites (64 days; range 2-153 days) (P = .13). No clinical variable considered predicted survival of more than, less than, or 3 months.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective series with variable treatment for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pancreatic cancer, identification of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA is associated with a very poor prognosis.

Endosonography: new developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review highlights recent advances in the field of endoscopic ultrasound, which occurred in 2008 and early 2009.

RECENT FINDINGS

Attention will be given toward the use of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of esophageal and pancreatic cancer, in the evaluation of pancreatic cysts and choledocholithiasis, and in performing therapeutic procedures such as endoscopic pseudocyst drainage and fine needle injection to treat pancreatic malignancy.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic ultrasound continues to be refined as a diagnostic procedure and is now emerging as a very promising and important tool for therapeutic interventions.

Systematic review of the impact of endoscopic ultrasound on the management of patients with esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) staging of esophageal cancer is established in clinical practice, high-quality evidence about its impact on patient outcomes is not available. This study aims to determine the impact of EUS for esophageal cancer staging on patient management and survival.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Included studies were (i) comparative studies reporting survival following EUS esophageal cancer staging, (ii) therapeutic impact studies reporting change in patient management following EUS. The quality of included studies was critically appraised.

RESULTS

One systematic review, five studies reporting therapeutic impact, and two studies reporting patient survival were identified. The design and quality of the therapeutic impact studies varied widely. Management changed in 24-29 percent of patients following EUS staging of esophageal cancer (two studies). No studies provided data on the avoidance of surgery for this indication. One retrospective cohort study with historical control found EUS staging of esophageal cancer improved patient survival; a second study with similar design limitations did not find a survival benefit for EUS staging in patients undergoing resection. These studies had a high potential for bias, limiting the value of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Two studies provided evidence of a change in patient management following EUS for staging esophageal cancer, a higher level of evidence for a clinical benefit than can be obtained from accuracy studies alone. This evidence contributed to a recommendation for public funding of EUS in staging esophageal cancer in Australia.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study is to report a large single-center experience with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of ascites.

METHODS

Consecutive patients at our institution in whom EUS-guided paracentesis was performed between January 1997 and July 2005 were identified retrospectively. All procedures were performed by or under the supervision of 1 of 5 experienced endosonographers with available on-site cytopathology.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients (33 men; mean age, 67 y) were identified. Previously attempted percutaneous paracentesis was unsuccessful in 3 of 6 patients. Ascites confirmed by EUS FNA was visible in 28 of 54 (52%) computerized tomography, 3 of 11 (27%) transabdominal ultrasound, and 4 of 8 (50%) magnetic resonance imaging examinations before EUS. Transgastric (n = 55) or transduodenal (n = 5) EUS-guided paracentesis (mean, 8.9; range, 1-40 mL) revealed malignancy in 16 (27%) from primary pancreatic (n = 9), gastric (n = 2), urothelial (n = 1), esophageal (n = 1), gallbladder (n = 1), bile duct (n = 1) cancer, and lymphoma (n = 1). The cytology from 2 patients was atypical (1 suspicious for malignancy and 1 considered reactive) and the remaining 42 were benign. Potential complications occurred in 2 of 60 (3%) patients with self-limited fever. Of the 8 of 60 (13%) patients who underwent subsequent surgery, 3 had metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 2) and metastatic small intestinal carcinoid (n = 1) to the peritoneum after negative EUS-FNA cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS frequently identifies ascites missed by other imaging studies. EUS-guided paracentesis may identify malignancy in a subset of patients. Negative ascitic fluid cytology from EUS FNA does not exclude possible peritoneal carcinomatosis.