4.1 Article

Staging and restaging of advanced esophageal cancer

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 530-534

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e3283025c91

Keywords

esophageal cancer; restaging; staging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Esophageal cancer staging continues to evolve, especially for advanced cases. Computer tomography (CT) scan of the thorax and abdomen to detect metastatic disease, and endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain the preferred methods. Several recent studies have evaluated alternative methods for locoregional and distant disease detection and staging. Recent findings There seems to be emerging roles for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, laparoscopic staging, and high-resolution T2-weighted MRI in esophageal cancer staging. Perfusion CT and FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT may have an emerging role in assessing response to neoadjuvant therapy. Restaging following neoadjuvant therapy remains suboptimal. A 50% or more reduction of tumor thickness by EUS postchemotherapy continues to be the best measure for tumor downstaging survival, while FDG-PET/CT may be more accurate than EUS-FNA and CT scan for predicting nodal status and complete responders after neoadjuvant therapy. Potential methylation analysis, digital image analysis, and fluorescence in-situ hybridization on EUS-FNA samples may increase the yield and prove to be better than routine cytology. Summary For advanced esophageal cancer, locoregional staging is best performed with EUS-FNA, with CT scan of the thorax and abdomen and FDG-PET, to detect metastatic disease. The role of EUS in restaging following neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial, with recent studies showing that FDG-PET/CT may be more accurate than EUS-FNA and CT scan for predicting nodal status and complete responders after neoadjuvant therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available