A retrospective analysis of oesophageal thickening diagnosed as an incidental finding at Computed Tomography with endoscopic and histological correlation

Endoscopic Evaluation of Radiologic Distal Esophageal Thickening

GOALS

We aim to determine the incidence of esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) primarily performed for imaging findings of distal esophageal thickening (DET). We also aim to determine if patients with imaging findings of DET have a higher incidence of cancer, and to evaluate the risk factors associated with findings of malignancy.

BACKGROUND

The growth of diagnostic imaging has led to an increase in incidental findings of DET. This nonspecific finding frequently prompts an EGD for evaluation-many of which demonstrate benign conditions. There may be a misuse of valuable resources.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective chart review of 1080 EGDs from January 2016 to July 2018 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, comparing EGDs for the indication of imaging report of DET with EGDs for other indications. Patient demographics, clinical history, imaging, procedure, and pathology reports were collected. Descriptive analysis and biostatistical analysis with χ2, Fisher exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were utilized in analyzing the data.

RESULTS

Of the 1080 total endoscopies, 8.2% (n=88) were done specifically because of the imaging findings of DET. Those who had EGDs performed because of DET had a higher percentage of abnormal esophageal findings and of cancer. A history of Barrett's esophagus, tobacco use, and having gastrointestinal symptoms were not significant predictors of abnormal findings or of cancer for EGDs done for DET.

CONCLUSIONS

There may be a role for EGDs performed for radiologic findings of DET. Even those without risk factors for malignancy should have EGDs performed for DET. Radiologists should consider reporting the DET size in order to determine if significant endoscopic findings correlate with wall thickness.

A comparative study of the normal oesophageal wall thickness based on 3-dimensional, 4-dimensional, and cone beam computed tomography

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare normal oesophageal wall thickness based on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT), 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS

Contrast-enhanced 3DCT, 4DCT, and CBCT scans were acquired from 50 patients with lung cancer or metastatic lung cancer. The outer oesophageal wall was manually contoured on each 3DCT, the maximum intensity projection of 4DCT (4DCTMIP) the end expiration phase of 4DCT (4DCT50) (the end expiration phase of 4DCT) and the CBCT data sets. The average wall thicknesses were measured (defined as R3DCT, R50, RMIP, and RCBCT).

RESULTS

Whether for thoracic or for intra-abdominal segments, there were no significant differences between R3DCT and R50, but significant differences between R3DCT and RMIP, R3DCT and RCBCT. For upper and middle oesophagus, RCBCT were larger than RMIP. There was no significant difference between upper and middle segments on 3DCT, 4DCT, and CBCT. Intra-abdominal oesophageal wall thickness was greater than that of thoracic oesophagus. There were no differences between upper and lower, and middle and lower oesophagus on CBCT.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate normal oesophageal wall thickness differed along the length of oesophagus whatever it was delineated on 3DCT, 4DCT (4DCT50 and 4DCTMIP) or CBCT. It is reasonable to use uniform criterion to identify normal esophageal wall thickness when delineating gross tumor volume on 3DCT and 4DCT50, the same is true of delineating internal gross tumor volume on 4DCTMIP or CBCT images for lower and intra-abdominal oesophagus. But, in spite of using contrast-enhanced scanning, relatively blurred boundary on the CBCT images is noteworthy, especially for upper and middle thoracic esophagus.