Posttherapy pathologic stage predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma receiving preoperative chemoradiationBACKGROUND: In patients with locoregional carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who underwent preoperative chemoradiation, it is unclear whether survival was better predicted by pretherapy clinical stage or by posttherapy pathologic stage. METHODS: The authors studied 235 consecutive patients with pretherapy clinical Stage II, III, or IVA (according to American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria) carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who were treated with chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. Posttherapy cancer status was classified using pathologic stage and semiquantitative assessment of residual carcinoma. Clinicopathologic features, residual carcinoma status, and pretherapy and posttherapy stage were compared with disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Posttherapy pathologic stage was Stage 0 in 29% of patients, Stage I in 11% of patients, Stage II in 34% of patients, Stage III in 20% of patients, and Stage IV in 6% of patients. Cancer downstaging occurred in 56% of patients. In univariate analysis, disease-free and overall survival were predicted by posttherapy pathologic stage (both with P < 0.001), margin status (P = 0.002 and P = 0.01, respectively), extent of residual carcinoma (both with P < 0.001), and downstaging (both with P = 0.001), but not by age, gender, type of cancer, pretherapy clinical stage, or preoperative regimen. However, in multivariate analysis, disease-free and overall survival were independently predicted by posttherapy pathologic stage (both with P = 0.02). Extent of residual carcinoma was a marginally significant predictor of overall survival (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Posttherapy pathologic stage was the best available predictor of outcome for patients with locoregional carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who underwent chemoradiation therapy followed by esophagectomy. The findings in the current study supported the concept of downstaging by preoperative therapy.
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Multidetector Spiral CT in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic CancerBanke Agarwal, Emad Abu-Hamda, Kimber L. Molke et al.|The American Journal of Gastroenterology|2004 INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now established as a valuable imaging test for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. But, with significant recent improvements in spiral CT scanners, particularly higher resolution and ability to reconstruct 3D images, spiral CT is now increasingly accepted as being better for pancreatic cancer staging. The debate continues, however, about the best diagnostic test or combination of tests in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Spiral CT is more readily available than EUS-FNA and, therefore, more frequently used. In this study, we evaluated the use of EUS-FNA in conjunction with spiral CT for suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 81 consecutive patients who underwent EUS and EUS-FNA for clinical suspicion of a pancreatic cancer from November 2000 to November 2001. All patients had spiral CT with a multiphasic pancreatic protocol using multidetector spiral CT scanners. In all patients, EUS-FNA and spiral CT examinations were performed less than 3 wk apart. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of spiral CT, EUS, and EUS-FNA was 74% (n = 60/81, CI 63-83%), 94% (n = 76/81, CI 87-98%), and 88% (n = 73/81, CI 81-96%), respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. In patients without an identifiable mass on spiral CT, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and EUS-FNA for pancreatic tumors was 92% (n = 23/25, CI 74-99%). Absence of a focal "mass" lesion on EUS reliably excluded pancreatic cancer irrespective of clinical presentation (NPV 100% n = 5/5, CI 48-100%). The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA was only 22% (n = 2/9, CI 3-60%) in patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture. However, in patients without obstructive jaundice at initial presentation, EUS-FNA was highly accurate (accuracy 97%, n = 33/34, CI 85-100%) and was reliable for ruling out malignancy (NPV 89%, n = 8/9, CI 52-100%). Cytologic assessment of EUS-FNA specimens was 89% accurate for identifying malignancy in suspicious lesions visualized on EUS. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS with FNA can be a valuable adjunct to newer high-resolution multidetector spiral CT for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.