A tertiary care hospital's 10 years' experience with rectal ultrasound in early rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rectal endoscopic ultrasound (RUS) has become an essential tool in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma because of the ability to accurately stage lesions. The aim of this study was to identify the staging agreement of early RUS-staged rectal adenocarcinoma with surgical resected pathology and ultimately determine how this impacts the management of early rectal cancer (T1-T2). METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed from November 2002 to November 2013 to identify procedure indication, RUS staging data, surgical management, and postoperative surgical pathology data. RESULTS: There were a total of 693 RUS examinations available for review and 282 of these were performed for a new diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma. There was staging agreement between RUS and surgical pathology in 19 out of 20 (95%) RUS-staged T1 cases. There was staging agreement between RUS and surgical pathology in 3 out of 9 (33%) RUS-staged T2 cases. There was significantly better staging agreement for RUS-staged T1 lesions compared to RUS staged T2 lesions (P = 0.002). Nearly 60% of T1N0 cancers were referred for transanal excisions (TAEs), and 78% of T2N0 cancers underwent low anterior resection. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified only a small number of T1-T2 adenocarcinomas. There was good staging agreement between RUS and surgical pathology among RUS-staged T1 lesions whereas poor staging agreement among RUS-staged T2 lesions. Although TAE is largely indicated by the staging of a T1 lesion, this approach may be less appropriate for T2 lesions due to high reported local recurrence.

Differentiating primary pancreatic lymphoma from adenocarcinoma using endoscopic ultrasound characteristics and flow cytometry: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Primary pancreatic lymphoma (PPL) is a rare pancreatic neoplasm that is difficult to diagnose. PPL has a vastly different prognosis and treatment regimen than other pancreatic tumors; therefore, accurate diagnosis is vital. In this article, we describe the characteristic presentation, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features, and the role of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in the diagnosis of PPL compared with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of 11 patients diagnosed with PPL via EUS between 2002 and 2011. The clinical and EUS features of the cases were then compared with age-matched controls with adenocarcinoma in a 1:3 ratio. RESULTS: There were 11 patients with PPL and 33 with adenocarcinoma. At last follow-up, 7 of 11 PPL patients were alive, and 3 of 33-adenocarcinoma patients were alive (P < 0.001). The most common presenting symptoms for PPL were pain 73%, weight loss 45%, and jaundice 18%, while patients with adenocarcinoma presented with pain 52% (P = 0.3), weight loss 30% (P = 0.47) and jaundice 76% (P = 0.001). The EUS appearance was similar in the two groups in that ultrasound imaging of the pancreas lesions tended to be hypoechoic and heterogenous, but the PPL group was more likely to have peripancreatic lymphadenopathy (LAD) (64% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) and were larger (4.8 cm × 5.3 cm vs. 3.2 cm × 3.1 cm, P < 0.001). The PPL group was less likely to have vascular invasion (18% vs. 55%, P = 0.045) and less likely to be found in the head of the pancreas (36% vs. 85%, P = 0.004). FNA and cytology (without flow cytometry [FC]) made the diagnosis in 28% of PPL patients compared with 91% of adenocarcinoma patients (P = 0.002). In the PPL group, 7 of 11 FNA samples were sent for FC. If FC was added, then the diagnosis of PPL was increased to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adenocarcinoma, pancreatic lymphoma has a better prognosis, is less likely to present with jaundice and less likely to have vascular invasion. PPL is more likely to be located outside the head of the pancreas and to include peripancreatic LAD, and is less likely to be diagnosed with cytology. The diagnostic accuracy of FNA for PPL is improved greatly with the addition of FC.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration characteristics of primary adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is often used to assist in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions and may help to diagnose benign versus malignant neoplasms. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding comparative EUS characteristics of various malignant pancreatic neoplasms (primary and metastatic). OBJECTIVE: To compare and characterize primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms, hereafter referred to as nonprimary pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NPPA), diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. The setting was a tertiary care, academic medical centre. Patients referred for suspected pancreatic neoplasms were evaluated. Based on EUS-FNA characteristics, primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma was differentiated from other malignant neoplasms. The subset of other neoplasms was defined as malignant lesions that were 'NPPAs' (ie, predominantly solid or solid/cystic based on EUS appearance and primary malignant lesions or metastatic lesions to the pancreas). Pancreatic masses that were benign cystic lesions (pseudocyst, simple cyst, serous cystadenoma) and focal inflammatory lesions (acute, chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis) were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were evaluated using EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic mass lesions. Thirty-eight patients were excluded because they were diagnosed with inflammatory lesions or had purely benign cysts. One hundred ninety-two patients had confirmed malignant pancreatic neoplasms (ie, pancreatic adenocarcinoma [n=144], NPPA [n=48]). When comparing adenocarcinoma with NPPA lesions, there was no significant difference in mean age (P=0.0675), sex (P=0.3595) or average lesion size (P=0.3801). On average, four FNA passes were necessary to establish a cytological diagnosis in both lesion subtypes (P=0.396). Adenocarcinomas were more likely to be located in the pancreatic head (P=0.0198), whereas masses in the tail were more likely to be NPPAs (P=0.0006). Adenocarcinomas were also more likely to exhibit vascular invasion (OR 4.37; P=0.0011), malignant lymphadenopathy (P=0.0006), pancreatic duct dilation (OR 2.4; P=0.022) and common bile duct dilation (OR 2.87; P=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Adenocarcinoma was more likely to be present in the head of the pancreas, have lymph node and vascular involvement, as well as evidence of pancreatic duct and common bile duct obstruction. Of all malignant pancreatic lesions analyzed by EUS-FNA, 25% were NPPA, suggesting that FNA is crucial in establishing a diagnosis and may be helpful in preoperative planning.

Dilation of malignant strictures in endoscopic ultrasound staging of esophageal cancer and metastatic spread of disease.

Background. Dilation of malignant strictures in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) staging of esophageal cancer is safe, but no data exists regarding the subsequent development of metastases. Aim. Compare the rates of metastases in esophageal cancer patients undergoing EUS staging who require esophageal dilation in order to pass the echoendoscope versus those who do not. Methods. We reviewed consecutive patients referred for EUS staging of esophageal cancer. We evaluated whether dilation was necessary in order to pass the echoendoscope, and for the subsequent development of metastases after EUS at various time intervals. Results. Among all patients with similar stage (locally advanced disease, defined as T3, N0, M0 or T1-3, N1, M0), there was no difference between the dilated and nondilated groups in the rates of metastases at 3 months (14% versus 10%), P = 1.0, 6 months (28% versus 20%), P = 0.69, 12 months (43% versus 40%), P = 1.0, or ever during a mean followup of 15 months (71% versus 55%), P = 0.48. Conclusions. Dilation of malignant strictures for EUS staging of esophageal cancer does not appear to lead to higher rates of distant metastases.

Integrated PET/CT fusion imaging and endoscopic ultrasound in the pre-operative staging and evaluation of esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: Accurate staging of esophageal cancer (ECA) is critical in determining appropriate therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning can be used, but limited data exists regarding the use of combined PET/CT fusion imaging and EUS in ECA staging. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of integrated PET/CT imaging and EUS in the staging of ECA. PROCEDURES: Identification of patients diagnosed with ECA from 2004 to 2007 that underwent staging PET/CT and EUS. Data regarding tumor detection, lymph node identification, presence of metastatic disease, and affect on patient management were collected and compared between PET/CT and EUS. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (65 male, 16 female) were identified with mean age of 63.5 years who underwent EUS and PET/CT to stage known ECA. PET/CT identified the primary tumor in 74/81 (91.4%) of cases, compared to 81/81 (100%) with EUS. Locoregional adenopathy was seen by PET/CT in 29/81 (35.8%) of cases, compared to 49/81 (60.5%) by EUS (p = 0.0001). PET/CT identified celiac axis adenopathy in 8/81 (9.9%) of cases, compared to 11/81 (13.6%) with EUS (p = 0.5050). PET/CT identified 17/81 (21.0%) of patients with distant metastases who subsequently did not undergo attempt at curative surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: In ECA, EUS is superior to PET/CT for T staging and in identifying locoregional nodes, while PET/CT provides M staging. EUS and integrated PET/CT appear to independently affect treatment decisions, indicating complimentary and necessary roles in the staging of ECA.

EUS and ERCP complication rates are not increased in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Further studies evaluating the safety of advanced endoscopic procedures in elderly patients are needed. AIM: To evaluate the safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the elderly. METHODS: The study population, consisting of 1,000 patients who underwent ERCP or EUS, was divided into two cohorts. The elderly cohort consisted of patients ≥ 75 years old. The nonelderly cohort consisted of patients <75 years old. The data collected included demographic information, type of procedure completed, procedure medication used, and endoscopic intervention performed. Complications included any event which occurred during the procedure or up to 1 month post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 600 ERCPs and 400 EUS were included. The mean age of the elderly cohort was 80 years (range 75-95 years, n = 184) versus 54 years (range 13-74 years, n = 816) for the nonelderly cohort. The ERCP complication rate was 10.0% in the elderly versus 10.6% (P = 1.0) for the nonelderly. The EUS complication rate was 4.8% in the elderly versus 3.1% in the nonelderly (P = 0.49). The overall complication rates were identical at 7.6% (P = 1.0). Sedation doses were lower for the elderly cohort (P < 0.001). There was a higher rate of procedure bleeding in the elderly cohort (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Advanced age is not a contraindication for advanced endoscopic procedures. There is no significant increase in the rate of overall procedure-related complications seen with either ERCP or EUS in elderly patients; however, elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. Less procedure-related sedation medication is required for elderly patients.

The role and clinical value of EUS in a multimodality esophageal carcinoma staging program with CT and positron emission tomography.

BACKGROUND: EUS, CT, and positron emission tomography (PET) have all been used in the preoperative staging of esophageal cancer separately or in various combinations. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the value and role of EUS when used in conjunction with CT and PET imaging in staging cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center clinical trial. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Data were examined for 56 patients who concomitantly underwent examination with EUS, CT, and PET in a multimodality staging program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: EUS, CT, and PET were examined for their ability to detect the primary tumor, local tumor stage, locoregional adenopathy, and distant metastases. With use of surgical resection as baseline therapy, the frequency at which EUS, CT, and PET affected and changed management was examined. RESULTS: EUS is the only imaging test that identified all primary tumors and provided tumor staging. EUS identified a significantly greater number of patients (58.9%) with locoregional nodes than did CT (26.8%), P = .0006, or PET (37.5%), P = .02. CT identified 14.3% and PET identified 26.8% of patients with distant metastases. With CT alone, 15.2% of patients were not taken to surgery, whereas PET affected management by preventing surgery because of metastatic disease in 28.3% of patients. EUS changed management by guiding the need for neoadjuvant therapy in 34.8% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, nonblinded study, lack of pathologic reference standard. CONCLUSION: The primary strength of EUS in a multimodality staging strategy is in identifying patients with locally advanced disease and guiding the need for preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. EUS is not suited to determine resectability of esophageal cancer alone and thus is most effective when used in conjunction with other imaging tests such as CT and PET.

EUS characteristics of Nissen fundoplication: normal appearance and mechanisms of failure.

BACKGROUND: In patients who develop symptoms after Nissen fundoplication, the precise mechanism of failure can be difficult to determine. Current testing modalities do not demonstrate sufficient anatomic detail to definitively determine the mechanism. This observational study establishes that EUS can determine fundoplication integrity and hiatal anatomic relationships after Nissen fundoplication. METHODS: EUS was performed on the native esophagogastric junction and after Nissen fundoplication in two swine. The EUS characteristics of a properly performed fundoplication were determined. Subsequently, complications of Nissen fundoplication were created, and EUS was performed on each. The EUS criteria of each mechanism of failure were defined. RESULTS: EUS provided sufficient axial resolution to distinguish the esophagus, the fundoplication, and the surrounding hiatal structures within a single image. US of the native esophagogastric junction discerned the length of intra-abdominal esophagus, esophagogastric junction, crura, and anterior hiatus, and, thus, the point of entry into the abdominal cavity. EUS of Nissen fundoplication revealed a 5-layered pattern in a 360 degree configuration. These layers represent the following: (1) the esophageal wall, (2) the space between the esophagus and the fundoplication, (3) the inner gastric wall of the fundoplication, (4) the gastric lumen, and (5) the outer gastric wall of the fundoplication. A slipped repair was identified by the presence of an echogenic gastric serosa within the fundoplication. A tight fundoplication results in attenuation of the gastric walls, thickening of the esophageal wall, and loss of the 5-layer pattern secondary to obliteration of the potential spaces of the gastric lumen. Dehiscence of the fundoplication was evidenced by a less than 360 degree 5-layer pattern. CONCLUSIONS: EUS of hiatal anatomic relationships is feasible and provides detailed information regarding the integrity and the position of a Nissen fundoplication. EUS may enable a precise determination of the anatomic causes of failure after antireflux surgery.