Predictors of survival for esophageal cancer patients with and without celiac axis lymphadenopathy: impact of staging endosonography.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer patients with M1a disease are reported to have poor survival. We hypothesized that patients with celiac lymph node metastases (CLN) identified by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) would predict a cohort with significantly worse survival postoperatively. Accurate preoperative identification of this group will facilitate future adjuvant studies. METHODS: During the study period, 211 patients with esophageal cancer underwent EUS staging. Patients with evaluable celiac axis (n = 182) were included in this study. Survival of patients with and without CLNs was compared and the factors affecting overall survival were assessed. A subgroup analysis based on CLN status was performed in the subgroup of patients who underwent surgical procedures. RESULTS: Follow-up data was available in 91.2% (166 of 182) of the patients. As staged by EUS, T1, T2, T3, and T4 tumors accounted for 9.3%, 11.5%, 56%, and 21% of the cases, respectively. At least one CLN was imaged by EUS in 40% (72 of 182). The 5-year survival in patients with CLNs detected by EUS was 13% (95% confidence interval, 5% to 21%) compared with 30% (95% confidence interval, 21% to 40%) in patients with no CLNs detected by EUS (p = 0.007). In the subgroup of patients who underwent surgical procedures (n = 68), patients with CLN involvement had worse survival compared with those who did not have malignant involvement of CLNs at the time of their operation (median survival 39.8 versus 13.8 months, p = 0.0008). In a Cox proportional model, adjusting for race and the type of therapy, patients with CLN involvement or advanced EUS American Joint Committee on Cancer stage were more likely to have worse survival (p < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: EUS base line findings correlate with long term survival in patients with esophageal cancer. Patients with M1a disease as identified by EUS had a significantly worse postoperative survival when compared with non-M1a patients. This cohort of patients will be ideal for the study of induction therapy since the effect of down staging can be assessed before operation.

The utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in detecting celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the detection and confirmation of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer and to define EUS features predictive of celiac lymph node metastasis in these patients. METHODS: The records of 211 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent EUS staging were reviewed. The operating characteristics of EUS were determined in patients where either surgery, EUS-FNA of a celiac lymph node, or both were performed (n = 102). The association between selected variables and the presence of celiac lymph node metastasis was evaluated by univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: EUS in 48 patients provided a true-positive diagnosis of celiac lymph node involvement, a false-positive and false-negative result, respectively, in 6 and 14 patients, and a true-negative diagnosis in 34 patients. The sensitivity of EUS in detecting celiac lymph node was 77% (95% CI [67, 88]), specificity 85% (95% CI [74, 96]), negative predictive value 71% (95% CI [58, 84]), and the positive predictive value 89% (95% CI [81, 97]). EUS-FNA was performed in 94% (51/54) of patients with celiac lymph nodes. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in detecting malignant celiac lymph nodes was 98% (95% CI [90, 100]). Advanced T-stage, the need for dilation, detection of peritumoral lymph nodes, and black race were associated with celiac lymph node involvement. In multivariable analysis, advanced T-stage was the strongest predictor of celiac lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: EUS and EUS-FNA are highly accurate in detecting and confirming celiac lymph nodes metastasis. Depth of tumor invasion as assessed by EUS is a strong predictor of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer.

Differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic masses by endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: It is often difficult to determine whether a mass in the pancreas is benign or malignant. The goal was to evaluate whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can reliably establish whether a mass is benign or malignant. METHODS: One hundred five patients with possible pancreatic tumors were referred for EUS. Those who were found to have a lesion suspicious for carcinoma and did not have a known malignancy also underwent EUS-guided FNA. RESULTS: A mass suspicious for cancer was identified in 73 patients, whereas inflammatory changes or a normal pancreas was noted in 32 patients. Four of the latter 32 patients were subsequently found to have cancer. EUS-guided FNA was performed on 47 of the 73 patients with a suspicious mass and was read as cancer in 27 patients, atypia in 10 patients, and benign in 10 patients. All 10 patients with atypia were subsequently confirmed to have cancer, and 6 of the 10 patients with a benign FNA were proved to have a tumor at surgery. EUS could differentiate the lesion as malignant with a sensitivity of 95%, specificity 88%, positive predictive value 95%, and negative predictive value 88%. CONCLUSIONS: Radial array EUS is helpful in supporting or refuting a diagnosis of cancer in a patient with a pancreatic mass. Although EUS-guided FNA can confirm the diagnosis, a negative FNA should not preclude exploration when clinically indicated.