Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasound and its impact on patient management: 1990-2000

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and multidisciplinary approach in the management of abdominal or mediastinal mass

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary approach on the diagnostic work-up and therapeutic management of patients with abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients (69 men, median age 65 years) with a suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic mass at computed tomography or MRI underwent EUS-FNA. All EUS-FNA findings and clinical data were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team (oncologists, surgeons, and gastroenterologists). EUS-FNA findings were compared with the final diagnosis made by histological evaluation of the surgical specimen or clinical outcome at follow-up.

RESULTS

A correct diagnosis was obtained by EUS-FNA in 96/120 patients (80%), indicating benignancy of the lesion in 21 (18%) cases and confirming malignancy in 75 (62%). On the basis of EUS-FNA findings, chemotherapy was tailored in 57/75 (76%) patients with malignancy whereas the surgical strategy was changed in 21/120 (18%) of patients. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 85%. A multidisciplinary team approach enabled a correct diagnosis in patients in whom EUS-FNA was nondiagnostic and to identify five cases with false-negative EUS-FNA findings.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has a relevant impact on the management of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions. A multidisciplinary team approach enables to overcome the EUS-FNA methodological limitations. The combination of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary team approach could help to diagnose and tailor therapeutic options in such patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: Performance and outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We report our single-centre experience with endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions with regard to clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy and safety.

METHODS

We prospectively reviewed data on 100 consecutive EUS-FNA procedures performed in 93 patients (54 men, mean age 60.6 +/- 12.9 years) for evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions. Final diagnosis was based on a composite standard: histologic evidence at surgery, or non-equivocal malignant cytology on FNA and follow-up. The operating characteristics of EUS-FNA were determined.

RESULTS

The location of the lesions was pancreatic head in 73% of cases, the body in 20% and the tail in 7%. Mean lesion size was 35.1 +/- 12.9 mm. The final diagnosis revealed malignancy in 87 cases, including adenocarcinomas (80.5%), neuroendocrine tumours (11.5%), lymphomas (3.4%) and other types (4.6%). The FNA findings were: 82% interpreted as malignant cytology, 1% as suspicious for neoplasia, 1% as atypical, 7% as benign process and 9% as non-diagnostic. No false-positive results were observed. There was a false-negative rate of 5%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 94.3%, 100%, 100%, 72.2% and 95%, respectively. In 23 (88.5%) of 26 aspirated lymph nodes malignancy was found. Minor complications occurred in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience confirms that EUS-FNA in patients with suspected solid pancreatic lesions is safe and has a high diagnostic accuracy. This technique should be considered the preferred test when a cytological diagnosis of a pancreatic mass lesion is required.

Current utilization and performance status of endoscopic ultrasound in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential tool for cancer staging and investigating gastrointestinal diseases. Although it is not a widespread skill, as its expanded indications became much more advanced so did its popularity and hospital acceptance. We aimed to study the utilization and indications of upper EUS in a Hong Kong community hospital. The secondary aim was to assess our accuracy in staging of esophageal and gastric cancer and in evaluating submucosal tumors.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone upper EUS in Tuen Mun Hospital from January 2002 to December 2006 were recruited. Their background data, indications, radiological investigations, upper endoscopy and operation records and histopathologic results were retrieved for analysis. The accuracy of EUS in esophageal cancer staging, gastric cancer staging and evaluating submucosal tumors was assessed by comparing surgical and histopathologic findings.

RESULTS

A total of 645 upper EUS examinations were performed and there has been a steady increase in EUS utilization in our hospital. The most common indications were evaluating submucosal tumors and staging esophageal and gastric cancer. The accuracy of T and N staging of esophageal cancer was 71.2 and 79.7%, respectively and for gastric cancer was 64.0 and 74.7%, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound was 70% accurate in identifying lesions arising from the submucosal layer and 100% accurate in identifying lesions from the muscularis propria.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound is an accurate method and its demand is increasing. The performance in a community hospital can be further improved and its utilization should expand to other indications.

Experience of endoscopic ultrasound in an Australian tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

There is minimal prospective data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) experience in Australia. This study aimed to review the recent EUS experience of a single Australian tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Data of all EUS carried out at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia were prospectively collected from August 2002 to September 2005. Patient demographics, indications, anatomical sites of EUS and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were extracted from the database. A subset of 231 patients were involved in a prospective study to assess the clinical effect of EUS: with accuracy and outcomes data derived from surgical histology and pre-EUS and post-EUS questionnaires.

RESULTS

Five hundred and sixty-one procedures were carried out for 526 patients. Men comprised 57% (n = 300). Mean age was 60 years (range, 19-92 years). The indications were (i) oesophageal 30.7% (n = 172); (ii) pancreaticobiliary 29.6% (n = 166); (iii) mediastinal and lung 20.7% (n = 116); (iv) gastric 15.9% (n = 89); and (v) duodenal 3.2% (n = 18). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA was carried out in 30.3% procedures (170/561). Overall EUS accuracy was 84% (55/67 patients) and EUS-guided FNA accuracy was 88% (28/32 patients). There were no major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest reported Australian experience of EUS to date. Overall EUS was accurate, safe with no major complications or mortality and had useful outcomes. The role, expertise and accessibility of EUS in the Australian clinical setting are anticipated to continue to increase.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric cancer: does it influence treatment?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the utility and shortcomings of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer and its influence on treatment.

METHODS

The series included 126 patients (65 men and 44 women) with gastric cancer who underwent EUS from July 1997 to June 2003 at the National University Hospital, Singapore. The final analysis included 109 patients ranging in age from 29 to 97 years (mean, 63.13 years).

RESULTS

EUS staging for primary disease: Specimen histology was available for 102 of the 109 patients who underwent surgery. The accuracy was 79% for T1, 73.9% for T2, 85.7% for T3, and 72.7% for T4. The overall accuracy was 80.4%. EUS staging for nodes: The sensitivity of EUS for detecting nodal disease was 74.2% for N0, 78% for N1, 53.8% for N2, and 50% for N3. Overall, the N staging by EUS showed a sensitivity of 82.8%, a specificity of 74.2%, a positive predictive value of 85.4%, a negative predictive value of 70.2%, and an accuracy of 77.7%. Radical gastrectomy was proposed for 95 patients on the basis of the staging with EUS and computed tomography (CT) scan, and 87 patients (91.6%) underwent the surgery. Preoperative staging accurately predicted the operative strategy for 89% of the patients. No significant predictor for accuracy was achieved by performing a logistic regression analysis for the correct staging of T stage using EUS and adjusting for tumor location (middle part/distal third/whole stomach vs proximal/cardioesophageal) (p = 0.873), operator (p = 0.546), and subject's sequence (initial 50 vs last 50 cases) (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound is the most accurate and reliable method for the preoperative staging of gastric carcinomas, and it is mandatory if a tailored therapeutic approach is planned according to stage.

Endoscopic ultrasonography: equipment and technique

By definition, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combines endoscopy and high-frequency ultrasound, incorporating a small ultrasonic transducer into the tip of endoscopes. For the upper gastrointestinal tract, mostly oblique-viewing endoscopes are used, although recently, forward viewing instruments have become available. For colorectal EUS, rigid probes for the rectum and a flexible forward-viewing echocolonoscope are available. EUS generates ultrasound either mechanically or electronically, depending on the type of instrument used. The electronic technique potentially allows the incorporation of (color) Doppler ultrasound, which allows for additional processing and postprocessing functions. This generally is considered the EUS technique of the future.

Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on the management of malignancies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are limited data evaluating the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We assessed the impact of EUS on management of known or suspected malignancies.

METHODS

Physicians requesting EUS were contacted before the examination and asked: "How would you manage this patient if EUS were not available?" Pre-EUS responses were recorded on standardized forms, and compared with management recommendations as determined by the same requesting physician after EUS. Endosonographers performing the study were blinded to the pre-EUS responses.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from requesting physicians before and after EUS in 90 patients. Requesting physicians were composed of surgeons (33%), non-EUS-performing gastroenterologists (58%), oncologists (3%), internists (4%), and a pulmonologist (1%). After EUS, referring clinicians altered management plans in 46 of 90 patients (51%). By anatomic site, management changes occurred in 12 of 22 patients (56%) undergoing esophageal EUS, 9 of 15 (60%) undergoing gastric EUS, 21 of 43 (49%) undergoing pancreatic EUS, and 4 of 10 (40%) undergoing rectal EUS. There were no significant differences in the frequency of post-EUS management changes with respect to examination site (P = .76). EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) altered management in 9 of 20 (45%) patients. Management changes involved less complex or decreased risk-associated approaches in the majority (70%), and included 14 of 50 (28%) patients in whom surgical procedures were no longer planned.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on EUS examination findings, clinicians requesting EUS alter patient management in one half of cases, and more often pursue a less-complicated approach. EUS substantially impacts clinical care, and should be used in appropriate settings to guide patient management.