Evaluation of the accuracy of preoperative staging in thoracic esophageal cancer

Nishimaki, Tadashi; Tanaka, Otsuo; Ando, Nobutoshi; Ide, Hiroko; Watanabe, Hiroshi; Sekiguchi, Masayuki; Takiyama, Wataru; Yamana, Hideaki; Ishida, Kazunari; Isono, Kaichi; Endo, Mitsuo; Ikeuchi, Toshiyuki; Mitomi, Toshio; Koizumi, Hiroyoshi; Imamura, Masayuki; Iizuka, Toshifumi

doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(99)01171-6

Cited by 72 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For T staging, there were 43 studies [10,18,[20][21][22][23][24] . There were 44 studies for nodal staging [10,18,[20][21][22][23][24][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][48][49][50]53,54,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] , and of these, 4 used FNA for nodal staging [23,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Puli¹,

Jb²,

Ml³

et al. 2008

WJG

323

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the staging of esophageal cancer. METHODS:Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Articles were searched in Medline and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS:Forty-nine studies (n = 2558) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS to diagnose T1 was 81.6% (95% CI: 77.8-84.9) and 99.4% (95% CI: 99.0-99.7), respectively. To diagnose T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92.4% (95% CI: 89.2-95.0) and specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 96.6-98.0). With Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA), sensitivity of EUS to diagnose N stage improved from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 96.7% (95% CI: 92.4-98.9). The P value for the χ 2 test of heterogeneity for all pooled estimates was > 0.10. CONCLUSION:EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity in accurately diagnosing the TN stage of esophageal cancer. EUS performs better with advanced (T4) than early (T1) disease. FNA substantially improves the sensitivity and specificity of EUS in evaluating N stage disease. EUS should be strongly considered for staging esophageal cancer.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Puli¹,

Jb²,

Ml³

et al. 2008

WJG

323

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, 31 articles on EUS for regional lymph node metastases (Tio et al, 1990;Botet et al, 1991;Rice et al, 1991;Ziegler et al, 1991;Dittler and Siewert, 1993;Grimm et al, 1993;Greenberg et al, 1994;Yoshikane et al, 1994;Binmoeller et al, 1995;Hasegawa et al, 1996;Hunerbein et al, 1996;Natsugoe et al, 1996;Pham et al, 1998;Vickers, 1998;Bowrey et al, 1999;Catalano et al, 1999;Nishimaki et al, 1999;Salminen et al, 1999;Choi et al, 2000;Nesje et al, 2000;Richards et al, 2000;Shinkai et al, 2000;Vazquez-Sequeiros et al, 2001Rasanen et al, 2003;Wu et al, 2003;Heeren et al, 2004;Sihvo et al, 2004;DeWitt et al, 2005;Lowe et al, 2005;Pedrazzani et al, 2005) and five articles on EUS for celiac lymph node metastases were included (Binmoeller et al, 1995;Catalano et al, 1999;Eloubeidi et al, 2001;Vazquez-Sequeiros et al, 2001;Parmar et al, 2002) (Table 1). For CT, the literature search gave 1091 hits.…”

Section: Literature Search and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For CT, the literature search gave 1091 hits. Seventeen articles on CT for regional lymph node metastases met the inclusion criteria (Quint et al, 1985;Botet et al, 1991;Ziegler et al, 1991;Sondenaa et al, 1992;Greenberg et al, 1994;Yoshikane et al, 1994;Flanagan et al, 1997;Nishimaki et al, 1999;Choi et al, 2000;Wren et al, 2002;Rasanen et al, 2003;Vazquez-Sequeiros et al, 2003;Wu et al, 2003;Yoon et al, 2003;Heeren et al, 2004;Sihvo et al, 2004;Lowe et al, 2005). As some articles containing the results of CT not only reported on celiac lymph node metastases, but also on other abdominal lymph node metastases, we decided to include all articles (five in total) with these results (Quint et al, 1985;Becker et al, 1986;Watt et al, 1989;Van Overhagen et al, 1993;Parmar et al, 2002).…”

Section: Literature Search and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in staging of oesophageal cancer. PubMed was searched to identify English-language articles published before January 2006 and reporting on diagnostic performance of EUS, CT, and/or FDG-PET in oesophageal cancer patients. Articles were included if absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, falsepositive, and true-negative test results were available or derivable for regional, celiac, and abdominal lymph node metastases and/or distant metastases. Sensitivities and specificities were pooled using a random effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to study potential effects of study and patient characteristics. Random effects pooled sensitivities of EUS, CT, and FDG-PET for regional lymph node metastases were 0. .86 -0.96) for CT, respectively. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET for distant metastases was significantly higher than that of CT, which was not significantly affected by study and patient characteristics. The results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET each play a distinctive role in the detection of metastases in oesophageal cancer patients. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is most sensitive, whereas CT and FDG-PET are more specific tests. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET has probably a higher sensitivity than CT. Its combined use could however be of clinical value, with FDG-PET detecting possible metastases and CT confirming or excluding their presence and precisely determining the location(s).

show abstract

“…Tumors were staged and assigned to T and N categories as previously reported. 8) Chemotherapy consisting of administration of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and nedaplatin (FAN) followed by radical esophagectomy was assigned to patients with Category 3 tumor; induction chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy followed, if feasible, by esophagectomy to patients with Category 2 tumor; and immediate radical esophagectomy to patients with Category 1 tumor. FAN chemotherapy was provided as a form of induction chemotherapy to patients who had been referred to our hospital for treatment of …”

Section: Tumor Categorization and Treatment Assignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Significance of Simultaneous Presence of Histological and Immunohistochemical Metastasis to Lymph Nodes in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Kinjo

Shimoji

Nagahama

et al. 2014

ATCS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the accuracy of preoperative staging in thoracic esophageal cancer

Cited by 72 publications

References 10 publications

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Prognostic Significance of Simultaneous Presence of Histological and Immunohistochemical Metastasis to Lymph Nodes in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About