Endoscopic ultrasound for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Impact of increased use of primary neoadjuvant therapy on preoperative locoregional staging accuracy

Echoendoscopy in Preoperative Evaluation of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Gastroesophageal Junction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Esophageal adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction constitute a global health problem, the incidence of which has increased in recent decades. It has a poor prognosis and a low 5-year survival rate. Its treatment is based on preoperative clinical staging, in which echoendoscopy plays an essential role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current accuracy of echoendoscopy in the staging of esophageal and esophogogastric junction adenocarcinomas. A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Portal BVS using the search terms Esophageal Neoplasm, Esophagus Neoplasms, Esophagus Cancers, Esophageal Cancers, EUS, EUS-FNA, Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Echo Endoscopy, Endosonographies and Endoscopic Ultrasound, with subsequent meta-analysis of the data found. The accuracy of tumor (T) staging was 65.55%. For T1, sensitivity was 64.7%, and specificity 89.1%, with an accuracy of 89.6%. For T2, sensitivity and specificity were 35.7% and 89.2%, respectively, with an accuracy of 87.1%. For T3, sensitivity and specificity were 82.5% and 83%, respectively, with an accuracy of 87%. For T4, sensitivity and specificity were 38.6% and 94%, respectively, with an accuracy of 66.4%. For node (N) staging, sensitivity was 77.3% and specificity 67.4%, with an accuracy of 77.9%. Echoendoscopy exhibits suboptimal accuracy in preoperative staging of esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophagogastric junction.

Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis and Feasibility of Endoscopic Treatment in Ulcerative Early Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

When the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is considered minimal in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective alternative to radical resection. This study aims to estimate the feasibility of ESD for EGC with ulceration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 691 patients who underwent gastrectomy for EGC with ulceration. Subsequently, a stratification system for lesions was created based on the expanded ESD criteria, and the associations between the subgroups and the rate of LNM were analyzed.

RESULTS

LNM was confirmed in 16.5% (114/691) of patients. Univariate analysis demonstrated that age, sex, tumor size, macroscopic features, depth of invasion, tumor differentiation, Lauren type, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and perineural invasion were associated with LNM. Multivariate analysis showed that LVI [odds ratio (OR) = 16.761, P < 0.001], SM1 invasion (OR = 2.159, P = 0.028), and SM2 invasion (OR = 3.230, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for LNM. LNM occurred in undifferentiated mucosal tumors, with ulceration being 1.7% (2/116) when the lesion was smaller than 20 mm. Further stratification revealed that among lesions < 30 mm in size, undifferentiated tumors with SM1 invasion had a higher rate of LNM and a lower disease-free survival rate than differentiated tumors with SM1 invasion and tumors limited to the mucosal layer.

CONCLUSIONS

Depth of invasion and LVI were strongly associated with LNM in ulcerative EGC. Endoscopic resection may be applicable for undifferentiated mucosal ulcerative EGC < 30 mm in size, and additional investigation is needed to evaluate its safety.

National Trends in Utilization of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Gastric Cancer: a SEER-Medicare Study

INTRODUCTION

Accurate preoperative staging is important for patients with gastric cancer. This study identifies the rate of utilization of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and its associated factors in Medicare patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare claims database was queried from 1996 to 2009 for patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastric resection. Analysis with univariate, multivariate, and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were performed.

RESULTS

In 5826 patients with gastric cancer with an average age of 76.9 ± 6.62 years, 59.1% had regionalized spread of cancer. EUS utilization increased significantly during the study period from 2.6% to 22% (p < 0.0001). EUS patients were more likely to be male, white, married, have higher education and income quartiles, and live in large metropolitan areas compared to non-EUS patients (p < 0.0001). Even after controlling for confounding factors, patients who underwent EUS were more likely to have >15 lymph nodes examined (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.53) and have the administration of both pre- and postoperative chemotherapy (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57).

CONCLUSION

EUS is currently under-utilized but increasing. Patients who underwent EUS (12.9%) were more likely to receive other NCCN-recommended care, including perioperative chemotherapy and adequate nodal retrieval.

Induction therapy does not improve survival for clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study compared survival after initial treatment with esophagectomy as primary therapy to induction therapy followed by esophagectomy for patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS

Predictors of therapy selection for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB from 1998 to 2011 were identified with multivariable logistic regression. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods.

RESULTS

Surgery was used in 42.9% (2057 of 4799) of cT2N0 patients. Of 1599 esophagectomy patients for whom treatment timing was recorded, induction therapy was used in 44.1% (688). Pretreatment staging was proven accurate in only 26.7% of patients (210 of 786) who underwent initial surgery without induction treatment and had complete pathologic data available: 41.6% (n = 327) were upstaged and 31.7% (n = 249) were downstaged. Adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or radiation therapy) was given to 50.2% of patients treated initially with surgery who were found after resection to have nodal disease. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between strategies of primary surgery and induction therapy followed by surgery (median 41.1 versus 41.9 months, p = 0.51). In multivariable analysis, induction therapy was not independently associated with risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16, p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Current clinical staging for early-stage esophageal cancer is highly inaccurate, with only a quarter of surgically resected cT2N0 patients found to have had accurate pretreatment staging. Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB is not associated with improved survival.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is proposed as an accurate diagnostic device for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which is crucial to developing a correct therapeutic strategy and ultimately to providing patients with the best chance of cure. However, despite a number of studies addressing this issue, there is no consensus on the role of EUS in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To provide both a comprehensive overview and a quantitative analysis of the published data regarding the ability of EUS to preoperatively define the locoregional disease spread (i.e., primary tumor depth (T-stage) and regional lymph node status (N-stage)) in people with primary gastric carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic search to identify articles that examined the diagnostic accuracy of EUS (the index test) in the evaluation of primary gastric cancer depth of invasion (T-stage, according to the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system categories T1, T2, T3 and T4) and regional lymph node status (N-stage, disease-free (N0) versus metastatic (N+)) using histopathology as the reference standard. To this end, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Library (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, NIHR Prospero Register, MEDION, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), from 1988 to January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that met the following main inclusion criteria: 1) a minimum sample size of 10 patients with histologically-proven primary carcinoma of the stomach (target condition); 2) comparison of EUS (index test) with pathology evaluation (reference standard) in terms of primary tumor (T-stage) and regional lymph nodes (N-stage). We excluded reports with possible overlap with the selected studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors extracted a standard set of data, using a dedicated data extraction form. We assessed data quality using a standard procedure according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. We performed diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis using the hierarchical bivariate method.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 66 articles (published between 1988 and 2012) that were eligible according to the inclusion criteria. We collected the data on 7747 patients with gastric cancer who were staged with EUS. Overall the quality of the included studies was good: in particular, only five studies presented a high risk of index test interpretation bias and two studies presented a high risk of selection bias.For primary tumor (T) stage, results were stratified according to the depth of invasion of the gastric wall. The meta-analysis of 50 studies (n = 4397) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity of EUS in discriminating T1 to T2 (superficial) versus T3 to T4 (advanced) gastric carcinomas were 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.90) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) respectively. For the diagnostic capacity of EUS to distinguish T1 (early gastric cancer, EGC) versus T2 (muscle-infiltrating) tumors, the meta-analysis of 46 studies (n = 2742) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93) respectively. When we addressed the capacity of EUS to distinguish between T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers the meta-analysis of 20 studies (n = 3321) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.84) respectively. Finally, for the metastatic involvement of lymph nodes (N-stage), the meta-analysis of 44 studies (n = 3573) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.87) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), respectively.Overall, as demonstrated also by the Bayesian nomograms, which enable readers to calculate post-test probabilities for any target condition prevalence, the EUS accuracy can be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric cancer. However, it should be noted that between-study heterogeneity was not negligible: unfortunately, we could not identify any consistent source of the observed heterogeneity. Therefore, all accuracy measures reported in the present work and summarizing the available evidence should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, we must emphasize that the analysis of positive and negative likelihood values revealed that EUS diagnostic performance cannot be considered optimal either for disease confirmation or for exclusion, especially for the ability of EUS to distinguish T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers and positive versus negative lymph node status.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

By analyzing the data from the largest series ever considered, we found that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS might be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric carcinoma. However, the heterogeneity of the results warrants special caution, as well as further investigation for the identification of factors influencing the outcome of this diagnostic tool. Moreover, physicians should be warned that EUS performance is lower in diagnosing superficial tumors (T1a versus T1b) and lymph node status (positive versus negative). Overall, we observed large heterogeneity and its source needs to be understood before any definitive conclusion can be drawn about the use of EUS can be proposed in routine clinical settings.

Treatment of clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Management of clinical T2N0M0 (cT2N0M0) esophageal cancer remains controversial. We reviewed our institutional experience over 21 years (1990-2011) to determine clinical staging accuracy, optimal treatment approaches, and factors predictive of survival in this patient population.

METHODS

Patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer determined by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) were identified through a prospectively collected database. Demographics, perioperative data, and outcomes were examined. Cox regression model and Kaplan-Meier plots were used for statistical survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 731 patients underwent esophagectomy, of whom 68 cT2N0M0 patients (9 %) were identified. Fifty-seven patients (84 %) had adenocarcinoma. Thirty-three patients (48.5 %) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery, and 35 underwent surgical resection alone. All resections except one included a transthoracic approach with two-field lymph node dissection. Thirty-day operative mortality was 2.9 %. Only 3 patients (8.5 %) who underwent surgery alone had T2N0M0 disease identified by pathology: the disease of 15 (42.8 %) was found to be overstaged and 17 (48.5 %) understaged after surgery. Understaging was more common in poorly differentiated tumors (p = 0.03). Nine patients (27.2 %) had complete pathologic response after chemoradiotherapy. Absence of lymph node metastases (pN0) was significantly more frequent in the neoadjuvant group (29 of 33 vs. 21 of 35, p = 0.01). Median follow-up was 44.2 months. Overall 5-year survival was 50.8 %. On multivariate analysis, adenocarcinoma (p = 0.001) and pN0 after resection (p = 0.01) were significant predictors of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS was inaccurate in staging cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer in this study. Poorly differentiated tumors were more frequently understaged. Adenocarcinoma and absence of lymph node metastases (pN0) were independently predictive of long-term survival. pN0 status was significantly more common in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, but long-term survival was not affected by neoadjuvant therapy. A strategy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection may be optimal in this group, especially in patients with disease likely to be understaged.

Esophageal cancer: staging system and guidelines for staging and treatment

Survival of esophageal cancer is improving but remains poor. Esophageal cancer stage is based on depth of tumor invasion, involvement of regional lymph nodes, and the presence or absence of metastatic disease. Appropriate work-up is critical to identify accurate pre-treatment staging so that both under-treatment and unnecessary treatment is avoided. Treatment strategy should follow guideline recommendations, and generally should be developed after multidisciplinary evaluation.

Appraisal of staging endoscopic ultrasonography in a modern high-volume esophageal program

BACKGROUND

Accurate pretreatment staging is essential to decision making for patients with esophageal and junctional cancers, particularly when choosing endoscopic therapy or a multimodal approach. As the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been reported as variable, we assessed it prospectively in a large cohort from a high-volume center.

METHODS

The EUS data from 2007 to 2011 were reviewed and analyzed. We conducted a comparative analysis with computed tomography-positron emission tomography (CT-PET) staging and pathology. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier testing on EUS-predicted T- and N-stage cohorts.

RESULTS

Altogether, 222 patients underwent EUS. Among patients undergoing primary surgical resection, preoperative EUS diagnosed the T stage correctly in 71 % (55/77) of cases. Sensitivity and specificity for T1, T2, and T3 tumors were 94 and 89 %, 55 and 80 %, and 66 and 93 %, respectively. Mean maximum standard uptake volume on CT-PET correlated moderately with the EUS T stage (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). EUS accuracy for nodal disease was 65 %. Survival was statistically better for the EUS T1 group than for those with T3 tumors (p = 0.01). Nodal metastases diagnosed on EUS predicted a significantly worse prognosis than EUS-negative nodes on both univariate and multivariate analyses (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.005 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant relation between EUS T and N stages and overall survival. EUS demonstrated 71 % accuracy for the overall T stage. Staging accuracy of EUS for large lesions was less effective than for T1 tumors, underlining the need for a multimodal investigative approach to stage esophageal tumors accurately.

Evaluation of the reliability of clinical staging of T2 N0 esophageal cancer: a review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database

BACKGROUND

Clinical staging of esophageal cancer has improved with positron-emission tomography/computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound imaging. Despite such progress, small single-center studies have questioned the reliability of clinical staging of T2 N0 esophageal cancer. This study broadly examines the adequacy of clinical staging of T2 N0 disease using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 810 clinical stage T2 N0 patients from 2002 to 2011, with 58 excluded because of incomplete pathologic staging data. Clinical stage, pathologic stage, and preoperative characteristics were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with upstaging at the time of surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Among 752 clinical stage T2 N0 patients, 270 (35.9%) received induction therapy before the operation. Of 482 patients who went directly to surgical intervention, 132 (27.4%) were confirmed as pathologic T2 N0, 125 (25.9%) were downstaged (ie, T0-1 N0), and 225 (46.7%) were upstaged at the operation (T3-4 N0 or Tany N1-3). Exclusive tumor upstaging (ie, pathologic T3-4 N0) accounted for 41 patients (18.2%), whereas exclusive nodal upstaging (ie, pathological T1-2 N1-3) accounted for 100 (44.5%). Combined tumor and nodal upstaging (ie, pathological T3-4 N1-3) accounted for 84 patients (37.3%). Among patients who received induction therapy, 103 (38.1%) were upstaged vs 225 (46.7%) without induction therapy (p = 0.026). Comparing the induction therapy group and the primary surgical group, postoperative 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 3.7%, p > 0.99) and morbidity (46.3% vs 45%, p = 0.76) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in staging techniques, clinical staging of T2 N0 esophageal cancer remains unreliable. Recognizing T2 N0 as a threshold for induction therapy in esophageal cancer, many surgeons have opted to treat T2 N0 disease with induction therapy, even though one-quarter of these patients will be pathologic T1 N0. Although this study demonstrated similar perioperative morbidity and mortality with and without induction therapy, further study is needed to examine the effect of upstaging on long-term survival.

Management of T2 esophageal cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2012;92:1169-1178. [PMID: 23026276 DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2012.07.003]

Patients with clinically staged T2N0 esophageal cancer are a small subset of patients for whom therapy is not standardized. Current clinical staging modalities are lacking in providing accurate staging for the presumed T2N0 subset. Problems with overstaging and understaging can each have adverse consequences for the patient. Furthermore, the benefit of induction therapy versus esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy for upstaged patients is unproven. The management of this challenging group of patients is reviewed.

Advances in endoscopic diagnosis of early esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in China. The prognosis of esophageal carcinoma is closely related to the stage of the disease at the time of detection. Patients with early lesions have an excellent prognosis, whereas those with more advanced stages of the disease usually have a poor prognosis. Therefore, the early detection of these lesions is of the greatest importance for treatment. Recently, many endoscopic methods have been developed, such as fluorescence endoscopy, confocal endoscopy, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and electronic staining imaging technology which includes narrow band imaging (NBI), Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy (FICE) and I-Scan. However, the clinical value of these techniques needs to be ascertained in the coming years. This paper reviews the progress of endoscopic diagnosis of early esophageal cancer.

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of distal and celiac axis lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Published data on the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging distant and celiac axis lymph node (CLN) metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer (ECA) has varied.

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing distal and CLN metastasis in ECA patients.

STUDY SELECTION

EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected.

STATISTICAL METHOD

Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 25 studies (N = 2029) which met the inclusion criteria. In ECA patients, pooled sensitivity of EUS was 67.2% (95% CI: 62.6-71.6) in diagnosis of distal metastasis and 66.6% (95% CI: 61.9-71.1) in diagnosis of CLN metastasis. EUS had a pooled specificity of 97.9% (95% CI: 97.1-98.6) for distal metastasis and 98.1% (95% CI: 97.3-98.7) for CLN metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although EUS has excellent specificity in accurately diagnosing distal and CLN metastasis in patients with ECA, the sensitivity is low.

Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

METHODS

Only EUS and EUS-FNA studies confirmed by surgery or with appropriate follow-up were selected. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane control trial registry. Only studies from which a 2 multiply 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Pooling was conducted by both 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

Data was extracted from 76 studies (n = 9310) which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 studies used EUS alone and 32 studies used EUS-FNA. FNA improved the sensitivity of EUS from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 88.0% (95% CI: 85.8-90.0). With FNA, the specificity of EUS improved from 84.6% (95% CI: 83.2-85.9) to 96.4% (95% CI: 95.3-97.4). The P for chi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10.

CONCLUSION

EUS is highly sensitive and specific for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and FNA substantially improves this. EUS with FNA should be the diagnostic test of choice for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

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

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 χ² 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.

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:547-557. [PMID: 18212745 PMCID: PMC2243147 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604200]

The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and ¹⁸F-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, false-positive, 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 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.84), 0.50 (0.41–0.60), and 0.57 (0.43–0.70), respectively, and specificities were 0.70 (0.65–0.75), 0.83 (0.77–0.89), and 0.85 (0.76–0.95), respectively. Diagnostic performance did not differ significantly across these tests. For detection of celiac lymph node metastases by EUS, sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (0.72–0.99) and 0.96 (0.92–1.00), respectively. For abdominal lymph node metastases by CT, these values were 0.42 (0.29–0.54) and 0.93 (0.86–1.00), respectively. For distant metastases, sensitivity and specificity were 0.71 (0.62–0.79) and 0.93 (0.89–0.97) for FDG-PET and 0.52 (0.33–0.71) and 0.91 (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).

Management of gastroesophageal tumors

The incidence of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction has increased in recent years. These tumors possess distinct pathophysiologic characteristics. Although the consensus is that an R0 resection (complete microscopic and macroscopic resection) is the goal when operating for curative intent, much controversy remains regarding other aspects of patient management. There is lack of consensus regarding the type of surgery to perform, the role and extent of lymphadenectomy, and the role of neoadjuvant therapy. Utilizing an evidence-based approach, this review article provides an overview of the management of gastroesophageal junction carcinomas with particular emphasis on current areas of controversy.

Frozen section analysis of esophageal endoscopic mucosal resection specimens in the real-time management of Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the validity of frozen section analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens from Barrett's esophagus as compared with permanent sections for the detection of neoplasia. Frozen sections help to give immediate feedback for surgical procedures. It has not been determined whether EMR can be adequately interpreted by using frozen sections to aid endoscopists in completely resecting neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

EMR specimens from Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or carcinoma were tested by frozen section. Pathologists evaluated EMR specimens for the depth of invasion as well as the appearance of clear margins of resection. The kappa statistic was calculated to assess the degree of agreement between the frozen section and permanent section diagnoses.

RESULTS

Twenty-three consecutive patients underwent 30 EMRs with frozen section diagnosis. Frozen section revealed a carcinoma in 7 specimens (23%) and dysplasia in 20 (66%). Permanent sections found carcinoma in 8 specimens (26%), dysplasia in 19 specimens (63%), and normal or nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus in the remainder. The kappa statistic for the depth of invasion of EMR specimens was 0.93 (near perfect agreement). The kappa statistic for the margins of the EMR specimens was 0.80 (excellent agreement).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that frozen section analysis of esophageal EMR specimens is valid as compared with permanent section. This technique might allow rapid evaluation about the degree and depth of involvement of cancers. This allows physicians to make decisions regarding further therapy if margins are involved or decrease the use of EMR for histologically benign-appearing lesions.