Endosonographic staging of upper intestinal malignancy

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) of the Luminal Gastrointestinal Tract

The purpose of this review is to focus on the diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound of the gastrointestinal tract. In the last decades, EUS has gained a central role in the staging of epithelial and sub-epithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract. With the evolution of imaging, the position of EUS in the diagnostic work-up and the staging flow-chart has continuously changed with two extreme positions: some gastroenterologists think that EUS is absolutely indispensable, and some think it is utterly useless. The truth is, as always, somewhere in between the two extremes. Analyzing the most up-to-date and strong evidence, we will try to give EUS the correct position in our daily practice.

Role of Endoscopy in Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy is a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Upper endoscopy has an established role in diagnosing and staging upper GI cancers, screening for pre-malignant lesions, and providing palliation in cases of advanced malignancy. New advances in endoscopic techniques and technology have improved diagnostic accuracy and increased the therapeutic potential of upper endoscopy. We aim to describe the different types of endoscopic technology used in cancer diagnosis, summarize the current guidelines for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of malignant and pre-malignant lesions, and explore new potential roles for endoscopy in cancer therapy.

Adjuvant therapy for pT1a-m3/pT1b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after endoscopic resection: Esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy? A critical review

Endoscopic resection (ER) combined with adjuvant therapy appears to be a new treatment for esophageal squamous cell cancers (ESCC) invading to deep mucosa (pT1a-m3) or submucosa (pT1b). Adjuvant therapy can take the form of esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), but it is unclear which treatment is better. This review is to explore the outcomes of adjuvant therapy between esophagectomy and CRT for the treatment of pT1a-m3/pT1b ESCC after ER. Ten relevant studies with a total of 285 patients were included. The reported 5-year overall survival rates ranged between 90-100 % for ER-esophagectomy and 75-85 % for ER-CRT. ESCC with the invasion of ≥ sm2 combined with lymphovascular involvement was associated with a high-risk of relapse in patients receiving ER-CRT, but not in ER-esophagectomy. In conclusion, patients with a high-risk of relapse should be treated with ER-esophagectomy; ER-CRT may be used as an alternative treatment for patients with a nonhigh risk of relapse.

Endoscopic ultrasound in oncology: An update of clinical applications in the gastrointestinal tract

An accurate staging is necessary to select the best treatment and evaluate prognosis in oncology. Staging usually begins with noninvasive imaging such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography. In the absence of distant metastases, endoscopic ultrasound plays an important role in the diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal tumors, being the most accurate modality for local-regional staging. Its use for tumor and nodal involvement in pre-surgical evaluation has proven to reduce unnecessary surgeries. The aim of this article is to review the current role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of esophageal, gastric and colorectal cancer.

Potential diagnostic and prognostic significance of plasma prolidase activity in gastric cancer

Aim: Plasma prolidase activities (PPAs) in cases of gastric cancer. Methodology/results: This study was based on a prospective design. 60 patients with gastric cancer (operable cases: 48; inoperable: 12) and 60 healthy controls were included in the study. Prolidase activity was analyzed. The mean PPA levels in the operable, inoperable and control groups were 45.60 ± 4.20, 54.35 ± 4. 9 and 10.92 ± 0.79 U/l, respectively (p < 0.001). PPA decreased significantly after tumor resection. PPA level was significant in differentiating operable cases from inoperable (sensitivity: 91.7%; specificity: 85.2%). Discussion/conclusion: PPA was significantly higher in patients with inoperable gastric cancer than in operable cases and the control group. A strong correlation was found between tumor volume and PPA.

Management of Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: Finally a Consensus

Opinion statement: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is increasing in incidence in Western nations leading to increased interest in and opportunity to study optimal management. Randomized trials have now robustly demonstrated the preoperative therapy with chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone improves survival outcome for the bulk of curable patients, those with locally advanced T1N1M0 and T2-3 N0-1 M0 disease. Evidence suggests but does not confirm that radiation-containing regimens are more beneficial. Clinical staging is designed to exclude patients with T1N0M0 disease who may be treated with surgery alone and those with metastatic disease who may not benefit from intensive local therapy. The approach to clinical staging includes endoscopy with ultrasound and fine needle aspirate to assess local and regional disease, supplemented by CT and PET scanning primarily to exclude metastatic disease. Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy may be used with the goal of reducing complications, but there is no evidence that mortality or ultimate outcome is improved.

Pretreatment predictive value of blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in R0 gastric cancer resectability

INTRODUCTION

New parameters complementary to clinical TNM classification are needed, to orient preoperative on the possibility of a R0 gastric cancer resection. We analysed the possible predictive value of blood neutrophil/lymphocytic ratio (N/L) in relation to resectability.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-seven gastric cancers consecutively diagnosed and without neoadjuvant treatment were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariate analysis of the frequency of R0 cases was performed between groups with a normal N/L ratio (<5) and pathological N/L ratio (≥5). Furthermore, we studied the subgroup of operated patients (n=156) analysing the frequency of R0 resection according to N/L ratio<5 or≥5.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients underwent surgical intervention, of which 139 had R0 resections. A high N/L ratio was registered in 46 cases (17.9%). Globally, resectability was higher in patients with a N/L ratio<5: 59.7% vs. N/L ratio≥5: 28.6% (P<.001; OR=3.76; 95% CI=1.78-8.04). The relation between N/L ratio<5 and R0 resection was confirmed in the multivariate (P=.006; OR=3.86; 95% CI=1.46-10.22). In the operated subgroup, the higher frequency of R0 resection achievement is maintained in cases with N/L ratio<5: 91.3% vs. 72.2% (P=.015; OR=4.04; 95% CI=1.23-13.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a N/L ratio<5 at the diagnosis of a gastric carcinoma is related in a significant and independent way with a higher frequency of R0 tumoral resection, globally. This higher proportion of R0 resection cases in patients with a N/L<5 ratio is confirmed in the subgroup of operated patients.

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.

Ultrasonographic characteristics of the abdominal esophagus and cardia in dogs

Differential diagnoses for regurgitation and vomiting in dogs include diseases of the gastroesophageal junction. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe ultrasonographic characteristics of the abdominal esophagus and gastric cardia in normal dogs and dogs with clinical disease involving this region. A total of 126 dogs with no clinical signs of gastrointestinal disease and six dogs with clinical diseases involving the gastroesophageal junction were included. For seven euthanized dogs, ultrasonographic features were also compared with gross pathology and histopathology. Cardial and abdominal esophageal wall thicknesses were measured ultrasonographically for all normal dogs and effects of weight, sex, age, and stomach filling were tested. Five layers could be identified in normal esophageal and cardial walls. The inner esophageal layer was echogenic, corresponding to the cornified mucosa and glandular portion of the submucosa. The cardia was characterized by a thick muscularis, and a transitional zone between echogenic esophageal and hypoechoic gastric mucosal layers. Mean (±SD) cardial wall thicknesses for normal dogs were 7.6 mm (±1.6), 9.7 mm (±1.8), 10.8 mm (±1.6), 13.3 mm (±2.5) for dogs in the <10 kg, 10-19.9 kg, 20-29.9 kg and ≥30 kg weight groups, respectively. Mean (±SD) esophageal wall thicknesses were: 4.1 mm (±0.6), 5.1 mm (±1.3), 5.6 mm (±1), and 6.4 mm (±1.1) for the same weight groups, respectively. Measurements of wall thickness were significantly correlated with dog weight group. Ultrasonography assisted diagnosis in all six clinically affected dogs. Findings supported the use of transabdominal ultrasonography as a diagnostic test for dogs with suspected gastroesophageal disease.

Clinical controversies in endoscopic ultrasound

The field of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is growing rapidly. Although EUS has enhanced our ability to diagnose and treat a wide variety of GI conditions, there are many controversial issues regarding the appropriate application of EUS techniques. In this review we discuss five controversial topics in EUS: the utility of EUS in staging of esophageal and gastric cancer; selection of appropriate needle gauge for fine needle aspiration (FNA); use of the stylet in FNA; and the emerging role of contrast agents in endoscopic ultrasound.

Risk stratification for serosal invasion using preoperative predictors in patients with advanced gastric cancer

Purpose

Although serosal invasion is a critical predisposing factor for peritoneal dissemination in advanced gastric cancer, the accuracy of preoperative assessment using routine imaging studies is unsatisfactory. This study was conducted to identify high-risk group for serosal invasion using preoperative factors in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological features of 3,529 advanced gastric cancer patients with Borrmann type I/II/III who underwent gastrectomy at Korea Cancer Center Hospital between 1991 and 2005. We stratified patients into low- (≤40%), intermediate- (40~70%), and high-risk (>70%) groups, according to the probability of serosal invasion.

Results

Borrmann type, size, longitudinal and circumferential location, and histology of tumors were independent risk factors for serosal invasion. Most tumors of whole stomach location or encircling type had serosal invasion, so they belonged to high-risk group. Patients were subdivided into 12 subgroups in combination of Borrmann type, size, and histology. A subgroup with Borrmann type II, large size (≥7 cm), and undifferentiated histology and 2 subgroups with Borrmann type III, large size, and regardless of histology belonged to high-risk group and corresponded to 25% of eligible patients.

Conclusions

This study have documented high-risk group for serosal invasion using preoperative predictors. And risk stratification for serosal invasion through the combination with imaging studies may collaboratively improve the accuracy of preoperative assessment, reduce the number of eligible patients for further staging laparoscopy, and optimize therapeutic strategy for each individual patient prior to surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of EUS for preoperative staging for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Accurate preoperative staging is important in determining the appropriate treatment of gastric cancer. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been introduced as a staging modality. However, reported test characteristics for EUS in gastric cancer vary. Our purpose in this study was to identify, synthesize, and evaluate findings from all articles on the performance of EUS in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 1998 to 1 December 2009. All search titles and abstracts were independently rated for relevance by a minimum of two reviewers. Meta-analysis for the performance of EUS was analyzed by calculating agreement (Kappa statistic), and pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for all EUS examinations, using histopathology as the reference standard. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. EUS pooled accuracy for T staging was 75% with a moderate Kappa (0.52). EUS was most accurate for T3 disease, followed by T4, T1, and T2. EUS pooled accuracy for N staging was 64%, sensitivity was 74%, and specificity was 80%. There was significant heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses found that annual EUS volume was not associated with EUS T and N staging accuracy (P = 0.836, 0.99, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EUS is a moderately accurate technique that seems to describe advanced T stage (T3 and T4) better than N or less advanced T stage. Stratifying by EUS annual volume did not affect EUS performance in staging gastric cancer.

An update in endoscopic management of gastric cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastric cancer remains a prevalent disease with a 5-year mortality rate of less than 25%. This review focuses on the endoscopic detection, staging, and management of gastric adenocarcinoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging have a 77-99.4% sensitivity for early cancer detection, a significant improvement when compared with white light endoscopy. Proper staging can be accomplished through endoscopic ultrasound and multidetector row-computed tomography, with accuracy as high as 90.1%. Endoscopic management of early gastric cancer is minimally invasive and can be preferable to surgery. In properly selected patients, endoscopic submucosal dissection has been found to have 100% 5-year survival.

SUMMARY

The recent advances in gastric cancer have greatly improved the care we can offer our patients in gastric oncology. The emerging technologies will hopefully continue to promote this trend.

Effect of dedicated and supervised training on achieving competence in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been suggested as a benchmark of quality performance in EUS. However, there is paucity of data on the training requirement for competency in EUS-FNA of the pancreas. KO commenced the service without prior formal training in EUS-FNA. A formally trained colleague (MN) who underwent a fellowship in the same unit was appointed to a substantive post in 2007. The aims of the study were to assess if a dedicated training program in pancreaticobiliary (PB) EUS-FNA of solid lesions: (1) produced better results at the outset of independent practice than produced at the initiation of service without formal training and (2) produced results comparable with those of an experienced endosonographer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review comparing the first 80 consecutive cases at the onset of practice of operator KO1 (2003/2004) and MN (2007/2008) as well as consecutive cases of operator KO2 (2007/2008) in the same time frame as the initial cases of operator MN.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in EUS-FNA sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy between operator KO1 (56%) and operator MN (77%) p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in test performance between operator KO2 (82%) and MN (77%) (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data show that formal training in PB EUS produces test performance at the outset of independent practice that is comparable with an experienced endosonographer, in line with the published standards for EUS-FNA of the pancreas and significantly better than that achieved without training.

EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of EUS in the locoregional staging of gastric carcinoma is undefined.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to comprehensively review and quantitatively summarize the available evidence on the staging performance of EUS.

DESIGN

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases for relevant studies published until July 2010.

SETTING

Formal meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy parameters was performed by using a bivariate random-effects model.

PATIENTS

Fifty-four studies enrolling 5601 patients with gastric cancer undergoing disease staging with EUS were eligible for the meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

EUS staging accuracy across eligible studies was measured by computing overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

RESULTS

EUS can differentiate T1-2 from T3-4 gastric cancer with high accuracy, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93), 9.8 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8), 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11-0.21), and 65 (95% CI, 41-105), respectively. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of EUS for lymph node status is less reliable, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88), 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6-5.4), 0.37 (95% CI, 0.32-0.44), and 12 (95% CI, 9-16), respectively. Results regarding single T categories (including T1 substages) and Bayesian nomograms to calculate posttest probabilities for any target condition prevalence are also provided.

LIMITATIONS

Statistical heterogeneity was generally high; unfortunately, subgroup analysis did not identify a consistent source of the heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of EUS for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which can affect the therapeutic management of these patients. However, clinicians must be aware of the performance limits of this staging tool.

Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer are operation contraindications. Systematic review to provide an overview of imaging in predicting the status of liver and peritoneum pre-therapeutically is essential.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and the China Biological Medicine Databases. QUADAS was used for assessing the methodological quality of included studies and the bivariate model was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Totally 33 studies were included (8 US studies, 5 EUS studies, 22 CT studies, 2 MRI studies and 5 18F-FDG PET studies) and the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The result of meta-analysis showed that CT is the most sensitive imaging method [0.74 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85)] with a high rate of specificity [0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00)] in detecting hepatic metastasis, and EUS is the most sensitive imaging modality [0.34 (95% CI: 0.10-0.69) ] with a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99) in detecting peritoneal metastasis. Only two eligible MRI studies were identified and the data were not combined. The two studies found that MRI had both high sensitivity and specificity in detecting liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

US, EUS, CT and 18F-FDG PET did not obtain consistently high sensitivity and specificity in assessing liver and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer. The value of laparoscopy, PET/CT, DW-MRI, and new PET tracers such as 18F-FLT needs to be studied in future.