Endoscopic therapy in early adenocarcinomas (Barrett's cancer) of the esophagus

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.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound for Preoperative Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis

Background

Treatment options and prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) depend on the primary tumor depth (T-staging) and regional lymph node status (N-staging). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a useful staging tool, but studies regarding its benefits have been variable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS for detecting preoperative ESCC.

Methods

We included in our meta-analysis studies involving EUS-based staging of preoperative ESCC compared with pathological staging. Using a random-effects model, we performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratio. In addition, we created a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve.

Results

Forty-four studies (n = 2880) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of T1 were 77% (95%CI: 73 to 80) and 95% (95%CI: 94 to 96). Among the T1 patients, EUS had a pooled sensitivity in differentiating T1a and T1b of 84% (95%CI: 80 to 88) and 83% (95%CI: 80 to 86), and a specificity of 91% (95%CI: 88 to 94) and 89% (95%CI: 86 to 92). To stage T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95%CI: 79 to 89) and a specificity of 96% (95%CI: 95 to 97). The overall accuracy of EUS for T-staging was 79% (95%CI: 77 to 80), and for N-staging, 71% (95%CI: 69 to 73).

Conclusions

EUS has good diagnostic accuracy for staging ESCC, which has better performance in T1 sub-staging (T1a and T1b) and advanced disease (T4).