Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic ultrasonography before laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative ultrasonography during open surgery for colorectal cancer may be useful for the detection of unrecognized liver metastases. Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) for the detection of unrecognized liver metastasis has not been studied in a randomized trial. This RCT tested the hypothesis that LUS would change the TNM stage and treatment strategy. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer and no known metastases were randomized (1 : 1) to laparoscopic examination (control or laparoscopy plus LUS) in three Danish centres. Neither participants nor staff were blinded to the group assignment. RESULTS: Three hundred patients were randomized, 150 in each group. After randomization, 43 patients were excluded, leaving 128 in the control group and 129 in the LUS group. Intraoperative T and N categories were not altered by LUS, but laparoscopy alone identified previously undetected M1 disease in one patient (0·8 per cent) in the control group and three (2·3 per cent) in the LUS group. In the latter group, LUS suggested that an additional six patients (4·7 per cent) had M1 disease with liver (4) or para-aortal lymph node (2) metastases. The change in treatment strategy was greater in the LUS than in the control group (7·8 (95 per cent c.i. 3·8 to 13·8) and 0·8 (0 to 4·2) per cent respectively; P = 0·010), but the suspected M1 disease was benign in half of the patients. CONCLUSION: Routine LUS during resection of colorectal cancer is not recommended. Registration number: NCT02079389 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic sonoelastography, and strain ratio evaluation of lymph nodes with histology as gold standard.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Accurate lymph node staging is essential for the selection of an optimal treatment in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) are considered to be the most accurate method for locoregional staging. Endoscopic sonoelastography (ESE) assesses the elasticity of lymph nodes and has been used to differentiate lymph nodes with promising results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of EUS, EUS - FNA, ESE, and ESE-strain ratio using histology as the gold standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer who were referred for EUS examination were enrolled if surgical treatment was planned and the patient had a lymph node that was accessible for EUS - FNA and EUS-guided fine-needle marking (FNM). The lymph node was classified using EUS, ESE, and ESE-strain ratio. Finally, EUS - FNA and EUS - FNM were performed. The marked lymph node was isolated during surgery for histological examination. RESULTS: The marked lymph node was isolated for separate histological examination in 56 patients, of whom 22 (39 %) had malignant lymph nodes and 34 (61 %) had benign lymph nodes. There were no complications of EUS - FNM. The sensitivity of EUS for differentiation between malignant and benign lymph nodes was 86 % compared with 55 % - 59 % for the different ESE modalities. The specificity of EUS was 71 % compared with 82 % - 85 % using ESE modalities. CONCLUSION: The use of the EUS - FNM technique enabled the identification of a specific lymph node and thereby the use of histology as gold standard. ESE and ESE-strain ratio were no better than standard EUS in differentiating between malignant and benign lymph nodes in patients with resectable upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle marking of lymph nodes.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: No previous studies have evaluated the ability of endoscopic ultrasonography to describe the anatomic location of lymph nodes on the basis of a node-to-node comparison. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of a new endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle technique for marking lymph nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with suspected or confirmed malignancies of the upper gastrointestinal tract were prospectively included. EUS-guided fine-needle marking (EUS-FNM) was performed with a silver pin with a diameter that allowed it to fit into a 19-gauge needle. The position of the pin was verified by EUS. End points were the ability to identify and isolate the marked lymph node during surgery and a comparison between the location of the pin as suggested by EUS and the actual location found in the resected specimen. RESULTS: Twenty-three lymph nodes were marked. Nineteen intended surgical isolations were performed. The lymph nodes were isolated in the resection specimens in 18 patients (95 %). In 2 out of 20 cases the pin was not localized by laparoscopic ultrasonography. In 89 % of the cases the marked lymph node was in the same location as described by EUS. One pin (5 %) was not retrieved. In three cases, a small hematoma was observed. There was no sign of long-term complications. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNM with a silver pin in lymph nodes is feasible and safe. EUS-FNM seems to be a suitable tool for evaluating lymph nodes on the basis of a node-to-node comparison.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) on surgical decision-making in upper gastrointestinal tract cancer: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is an integrated part of the pretherapeutic evaluation program for patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancer. Whether the clinical impact of EUS differs between surgeons from different countries is unknown. The same applies to the potential clinical influence of EUS misinterpretations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement on predefined treatment strategies between surgeons from four different countries, with and without EUS, and to evaluate the clinical consequences of EUS misinterpretations. METHODS: One hundred patients with upper GI tract cancer were randomly selected from all upper GI tract cancer patients treated at Odense University Hospital between 1997 and 2000. Based on patient records and EUS database results, a case story was created with and without the EUS result for each patient. Four surgeons were asked to select the relevant treatment strategy in each case, at first without knowledge of the EUS and thereafter with the EUS result available. Interobserver agreement and impact of EUS misinterpretations were evaluated using the actual final treatment of each patient as reference. RESULTS: Three of four or all four surgeons agreed on the same treatment strategy for nearly 60% of the patients with and without the EUS results. Treatment decisions were changed in 34% based on the EUS results, and the majority of these changes were toward nonsurgical and palliative treatments (85%). Interobserver agreement was relatively low, but overall EUS increased kappa values from 0.16 ("poor") to 0.33 ("fair"), thus indicating increased overall agreement after the EUS results were available. EUS conclusion regarding stage or resectability was wrong in 17% of the cases, but only one serious event would have been the clinical result of EUS misinterpretations. CONCLUSION: Despite being used in different ways by different surgeons, EUS did change patient management in one third of the cases. The impact of EUS misinterpretations seemed very low, and this study confirmed one of the strongest clinical possibilities of EUS, i.e., the ability to detect nonresectable cases. EUS is an important imaging modality for oncosurgeons from different countries.

Combined preoperative endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography for prediction of R0 resection in upper gastrointestinal tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the ability of combined endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography to predict R0 resection and avoid unnecessary surgery in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer (UGIC). METHODS: A total of 411 consecutive patients with UGIC (182 pancreatic cancers, 134 gastric cancers and 95 oesophageal cancers) treated between January 2002 and May 2004 were analysed prospectively. The allocation of patients into resectability groups by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) was compared with the treatment actually undertaken. RESULTS: The combination of EUS and LUS correctly predicted R0 resection in 90.6 per cent, R1-R2 in 91 per cent and irresectability in 91.4 per cent of patients. Ten patients (2.4 per cent) had explorative laparotomy only. There were no complications associated with the EUS and LUS procedures. CONCLUSION: The routine use of EUS and LUS before surgery predicted R0 resection in nine of ten patients and reduced the number of unnecessary laparotomies to less than 3 per cent.

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasound as preoperative assessment of patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: An accurate pre-therapeutic assessment of the resectability in pancreatic cancer patients is essential to reduce the number of futile surgical explorations. The aim of this study was to assess the combination of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) regarding the detection of patients with non-resectable tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2002 to 2004, 179 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer referred for surgical treatment were eligible. Thirty-one (17%) patients were excluded due to co-morbidity and poor performance status. Two patients (1%) were excluded due to metastasis seen on CT scans prior to referral. Thus, 146 patients entered the study. Patients were first examined with EUS followed by LUS, if EUS found no signs of non-resectability. Only patients with tumours found to be resectable or possibly resectable at EUS and LUS were offered surgical treatment. Resectability criteria were defined prior to the study. RESULTS: In all, 108 (74%) patients had non-resectable tumours by the pre-defined criteria. EUS identified 68 (63%) patients and LUS identified an additional 26 (24%) patients. Thus, a total of 94 (87%) patients were non-resectable at either EUS or LUS. Fifty-two (36%) patients underwent surgery. Six patients had surgical exploration and three patients had palliative surgery. Forty-three patients (29%) were resected with curative intention, of whom 38 (88%) had an R0 resection and 5 (12%) had a palliative resection. DISCUSSION: The combination of EUS and LUS is accurate in identifying the non-resectable patients and has a high predictive value for complete resection.

Prospective evaluation of patient tolerability, satisfaction with patient information, and complications in endoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Prospective data are lacking on the safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and on patient satisfaction with the procedure. We prospectively recorded complications related to EUS in order to establish morbidity and mortality. In addition the levels of patient satisfaction were evaluated, with regard to the tolerability of the procedure (pain, discomfort, and anxiety levels) and the provision of information. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 3324 consecutive patients who underwent EUS were studied with regard to complications. During the study period 300 patients were interviewed and followed up in detail as part of the evaluation of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Ten patients (0.3 %) suffered from a complication related to the EUS procedure, and two patients died (0.06 %). There were no significant differences between the complication rates for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and for EUS, but both fatal cases related to EUS-FNA/EUS-guided intervention. Nine of the ten patients with complications (90 %) had a diagnosis of malignancy, and esophageal perforation accounted for half of all complications. Although the majority of patients with nonlethal complications were managed well on conservative regimens, only one case, of self-limiting acute pancreatitis, could be classified as a mild complication. With regard to patient tolerability, only minor incidents occurred during the EUS procedure (tracheal suction 5 %, vomiting 0.3 %, aspiration 0.3 %) and no intervention was necessary. During the procedure, 80 % of the patients had no or only slight pain and more than 95 % experienced only slight or no anxiety, whereas more than half of the patients experienced moderate to severe discomfort. More than 90 % of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the information provided to them before and after the EUS, and the same number of patients were ready without hesitation to undergo an additional EUS examination if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: EUS, EUS-FNA and EUS-guided intervention are safe techniques, but severe and lethal complications do occur. The EUS procedures can be performed with a high level of patient satisfaction and with low levels of pain, discomfort and anxiety.

A new method for three-dimensional laparoscopic ultrasound model reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ultrasound is an important modality in the staging of gastrointestinal tumors. Correct staging depends on good spatial understanding of the regional tumor infiltration. Three-dimensional (3D) models may facilitate the evaluation of tumor infiltration. The aim of the study was to perform a volumetric test and a clinical feasibility test of a new 3D method using standard laparoscopic ultrasound equipment. METHODS: Three-dimensional models were reconstructed from a series of two-dimensional ultrasound images using either electromagnetic tracking or a new 3D method. The volumetric accuracy of the new method was tested ex vivo, and the clinical feasibility was tested on a small series of patients. RESULTS: Both electromagnetic tracked reconstructions and the new 3D method gave good volumetric information with no significant difference. Clinical use of the new 3D method showed accurate models comparable to findings at surgery and pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the new 3D method is technically feasible, and its volumetrically, accurate compared to 3D with electromagnetic tracking.

An intraluminal prosthesis may improve healing of a one-layer colonic anastomosis: an experimental study in pigs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healing of one-layer colonic anastomoses with or without a soluble intraluminal prosthesis (* SBS-tube). DESIGN: Randomised, partly blinded controlled study. SETTING: University hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: 16 female Danish country strain pigs, of which 8 had the SBS tube inserted and 8 acted as controls. INTERVENTIONS: One-layer colonic anastomoses either hand-sewn (n = 8, controls) or hand-sewn onto an SBS tube (n = 8). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Macroscopic evaluation, leakage test, breaking strength, histology, oxygen tension in and near the anastomosis peroperatively and 4 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Three quarters of the tubes (n = 8) dissolved in less than 2 hours. Histological examination showed significantly better structured layers and more mucosal epithelial covering in the SBS group. The other histological variables examined were: tissue gap (p < 0.08), inflammation (p < 0.10), breaking strength (p < 0.46) and amount of granulation tissue (p < 0.71), but the last findings were not significant. Oxygen tension at the anastomotic line was better in the SBS tube group, but not significantly so. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the SBS tube facilitates the sewing of the anastomosis and may improve healing, possibly because of better apposition of the cut ends and reduced tension in the sutures.

Initial experience with new dedicated needles for laparoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and histological biopsies.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is an important imaging modality during laparoscopic staging of intra-abdominal malignancies, but LUS-assisted biopsy is often difficult or impossible. We report a newly developed inbuilt biopsy system for direct LUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and Tru-cut biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LUS-guided biopsy was performed in 20 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract tumors. The biopsied lesions had either not been previously detected by other imaging modalities or had been inaccessible, or the biopsy sample had been inadequate. Primary diagnosis, duration of biopsy procedure, needle monitoring (visibility, penetration, and deviation), complications, technical failures, and pathological findings were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: 44 biopsies were performed with 25 needles (19, 20, and 22-G). Needle monitoring and penetration were good or acceptable in 18 patients (90%). Slight needle deviation (<10 mm) was seen in eight patients (40%). The LUS-guided biopsy specimen was sufficient for analysis in 13 patients (65%). In two additional patients, adequate material was obtained, but pathological examination was impossible owing to incorrect handling of the specimen. The biopsy procedures lasted 16.3 minutes (range 10-20 minutes) and no complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: LUS-guided fine-needle aspiration or Trucut biopsy is possible using this newly developed biopsy system. These preliminary data suggest that LUS-guided biopsy may further improve the diagnostic possibilities of LUS.

Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies. A prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) in the upper gastrointestinal tract, but so far no studies have specifically evaluated the clinical impact of EUS-FNAB in upper gastrointestinal tract cancer patients. In this consecutive and prospective study, EUS-FNAB was only performed if a positive malignant finding would change the therapeutic strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999, 307 consecutive patients were referred for EUS with a diagnosis or strong suspicion of esophageal, gastric or pancreatic cancer; 274 patients were potential candidates for surgical treatment and had EUS. According to predefined impact criteria, 27% (75/274) of the patients had EUS-FNAB for staging or diagnostic reasons. RESULTS: The overall clinical impact of EUS-FNAB was 13%, 14%, and 30% in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. The staging-related clinical impact was similar for all three types of cancer (11-12.5%), whereas the diagnosis-related impact was highest in pancreatic cancer patients (86%). EUS-FNAB was inadequate in 13% and gave false-negative results in 5%. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for EUS-FNAB were 80%, 78% and 80%, respectively. No complications related to the biopsy procedure were seen. CONCLUSIONS: If EUS-FNAB was performed only in cases where a positive malignant result would change patient management, then approximately one out of four patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer would require a biopsy. With this approach the actual clinical impact of EUS-FNAB ranged from 13% in esophageal cancer to 30% in pancreatic cancer. EUS-FNAB plays a limited, but very important clinical role in the assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer.

[Curative treatment of ventricular cancer]. / Kurativ behandling af cancer ventriculi.

Extended lymphadenectomy on connection with the surgical treatment of gastric cancer is gaining access in western centres especially since Japanese centres have shown an ever increasing rate of survival over several decades, coupled with the fact that operative procedures have become more sophisticated. The latest prospective studies in the west seem to confirm the value of lymphadenectomy in some patients. Furthermore, correct staging demands extended lymphadenectomy. For patients with gastric cancer, adjuvant preoperative chemotherapy is probably an asset.

Laparoscopic four-way ultrasound probe with histologic biopsy facility using a flexible tru-cut needle.

Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) is widely used in the staging of upper gastrointestinal malignancies. However, accurate N-staging and pathological confirmation of metastases have proved difficult. A new four-way laparoscopic ultrasound probe has been developed. The probe has a biopsy attachment with a needle guide for a flexible tru-cut needle or an aspiration needle. It is now possible to take real-time laparoscopic ultrasound guided biopsies. Furthermore, there is a possibility for interventionel LUS with tumor destruction, celiac plexus neurolysis, and cyst aspiration. In this short technical note, the equipment and the technique are described.

Cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies in patients with nonresectable upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Using a simple model, this retrospective study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies used for pretherapeutic detection of patients with disseminated or locally nonresectable upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies (UGIM). Of 162 consecutive UGIM patients referred for treatment, 73 (45%) had disseminated or locally nonresectable disease, and these patients were eligible for evaluation. RESULTS: The noninvasive diagnostic strategies (computed tomography [CT] with ultrasonography [US] and endoscopic ultrasonography [EUS]) had a low procedure cost, but a diagnostic strategy based on CT with US or CT with US and laparoscopy was not cost-effective. The inclusion of endoscopic or laparoscopic ultrasonography seemed necessary to the provision of a cost-effective strategy because both techniques had a high diagnostic accuracy combined with a low cost. A change in diagnostic strategy from CT with US to CT with US and EUS resulted in a net saving regarding the cost of each additional nonresectable patient detected, but this strategy still required up to 20% futile explorative laparotomies. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography was cost-effective and had no complications in this study. We use this strategy as our standard in the pretherapeutic evaluation of UGIM patients.

TNM staging and assessment of resectability of pancreatic cancer by laparoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is an imaging modality that combines laparoscopy and ultrasonography. The purpose of this prospective blinded study was to evaluate the TNM stage and assessment of resectability by LUS in patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Of the 71 consecutive patients admitted to our department, 36 were excluded from the study, mainly due to evident signs of metastatic disease or another condition that would preclude surgery. Thus, a total of 35 patients were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent abdominal CT scan, ultrasonography, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), diagnostic laparoscopy, and LUS. Histopathologic examination was considered to be the final evaluation for LUS in all but three patients, where EUS was used as the reference. RESULTS: The accuracy of LUS in T staging was 29/33 (80%); in N staging it was 22/34 (76%); in M staging, it was 23/34 (68%); and in overall TNM staging, it was 23/34 (68%). In assessment of nonresectability, distant metastases, and lymph node metastases, the sensitivity was 0.86, 0.43 and 0.67, respectively, for LUS alone. Combining the information gleaned from laparoscopy and LUS, the accuracy in finding nonresectable tumors was 89%. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic laparoscopy with LUS is highly accurate in TNM staging and assessment of resectability of pancreatic cancer and should be considered an important modality in the assessment algorithm.

Laparoscopic ultrasonography--a method for staging of upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is a method that can be useful in the staging of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Dedicated transducers are available, and preliminary studies have proposed indications for the use of LUS staging of hepatic, esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer disease. In the staging and resectability assessment of upper gastrointestinal cancer LUS seems to provide important additional information thus avoiding futile laparotomies in non-resectable patients. This short review summarizes some of the most relevant references concerning the use of LUS in upper gastrointestinal tract cancer.

Comparison of clinical judgment and diagnostic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: experience with a score-aided diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgment and diagnostic ultrasonography (US) used routinely and to create a scoring system to aid diagnosis. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: 222 Consecutive patients suspected of having acute appendicitis admitted between 0800 and midnight from June 1990 to June 1992. INTERVENTIONS: 148 Patients (67%) underwent appendicectomy and the remaining 74 patients were observed. 193 Patients (87%) had a diagnostic US examination. 21 Predictive variables were collected prospectively to create a scoring system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results of surgical pathological findings, clinical outcome (observed group), diagnostic US, and values of diagnostic score. RESULTS: The decision to operate was made by a junior surgeon solely on the clinical examination, which yielded a diagnostic accuracy of 76%, specificity of 58%, and negative appendicectomy rate of 36%. 193 Patients underwent diagnostic US conducted by the radiologist on call of whom 123 were operated on, 78 for histologically proven appendicitis. US had a diagnostic accuracy of 72%, sensitivity of 49%, and specificity of 88%. Of the 21 predictive factors for acute appendicitis 11 were significant (p < 0.05): total white cell count (WCC) (>10 x 10[9]/1), migration of pain to the right lower quadrant, gradual onset of pain, increasing intensity of pain, pain aggravated by movement, pain aggravated by coughing, anorexia, vomiting, indirect tenderness (Rovsing's sign), muscle spasm, and sex. These 11 predictors were assigned an appropriate weight, based on the likelihood ratio, and used to create a scoring system. The score performed poorly if it was used to separate patients for observation and those for appendicectomy. However, if the score was used with two cut-off points resulting in three test zones (low, intermediate, and high risk of having acute appendicitis), some diagnostic benefit was seen for those patients within the zones of high and low probability. CONCLUSION: The clinical judgment of a junior surgeon was disappointing, and diagnostic aids are desirable to reduce the negative appendicectomy rate. Diagnostic US performed poorly as a routine procedure. Application of an up to date scoring system might be of some help to patients with a high or low probability of acute appendicitis, but any conclusion about its clinical application cannot be drawn from this study.

[Pre-therapeutic assessment of resectability in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer. Combined use of endoscopic ultrasonography and laparoscopy]. / Praeterapeutisk resektabilitetsvurdering af patienter med øvre gastrointestinal cancer. Kombination af endoskopisk ultralydskanning og laparoskopi.

The combined use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and laparoscopy for the assessment of resectability in patients with upper GI tract cancer was prospectively evaluated in 57 patients. Laparoscopy was able to fill the informational gap in all the patients (n = 6) where EUS failed to give a complete assessment of resectability. This study suggests that the combination of EUS and laparoscopy can reduce the need for "necessary" laparoscopies to about 10%.

Combined endoscopic ultrasonography and laparoscopic ultrasonography in the pretherapeutic assessment of resectability in patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Even though endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has improved the pretherapeutic staging and assessment of resectability in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract malignancies, a considerable number of patients still have to undergo unnecessary explorative laparotomy to obtain the final assessment of resectability. The aim of the present study was to evaluate laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) and the combination of EUS and LUS in the pretherapeutic study of these patients with special reference to resectability. METHODS: Each of 44 patients with esophageal, gastric, or pancreatic cancer was assigned to a treatment-related resectability group based on five different imaging modalities: computer tomography (CT) + ultrasonography (US), EUS, laparoscopy, LUS, and EUS + LUS. The findings with these imaging modalities were compared with intraoperative findings. RESULTS: Overall group assignment accuracy showed significantly better results for EUS, LUS, and EUS + LUS than for CT + US and laparoscopy. EUS + LUS identified all non-resectable patients, whereas the sensitivity of CT + US, laparoscopy, and EUS were 14%, 36%, and 79%, respectively. Median time consumption for each EUS, laparoscopy, or LUS procedure was less than 25 min, and no complications were seen during or after the EUS, laparoscopy, or LUS procedures. CONCLUSION: Preliminary experience with the combination of EUS and LUS for pretherapeutic assessment of upper GI tract malignancies showed that this combination was superior to CT + US, laparoscopy, and EUS. EUS + LUS correctly identified all non-resectable patients, but two overstaged patients also indicated the need for larger prospective studies to identify the indications and the limitations of this new approach.