2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      New frontiers in esophageal radiology

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. Advances in treatment have translated into steadily improving survival rates. Accurate preoperative staging of esophageal cancer is imperative in order to provide an accurate prognosis and direct patients to the most appropriate treatment. Current preoperative staging relies on imaging, most commonly endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET). A combination of these modalities should be used in preoperative staging, as each has advantages over another. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has always shown promise in its ability to accurately stage esophageal cancer, though it has not been consistently adopted as a common tool for this purpose. Recent research has demonstrated that MRI can become an integral part of esophageal cancer clinical staging. Advances in MR technology that utilize radial sampling allow for shorter, free breathing techniques without degradation of image quality, resulting in improved capability for T and N staging of esophageal cancer. MRI enhanced with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) and ultrasmall SPIO (USPIO) nanoparticles has been shown to be useful for the detection of metastatic disease in lymph nodes. This article will review the current evidence in the role that imaging plays in staging esophageal cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

          Estimates of the worldwide incidence and mortality from 27 major cancers and for all cancers combined for 2012 are now available in the GLOBOCAN series of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We review the sources and methods used in compiling the national cancer incidence and mortality estimates, and briefly describe the key results by cancer site and in 20 large "areas" of the world. Overall, there were 14.1 million new cases and 8.2 million deaths in 2012. The most commonly diagnosed cancers were lung (1.82 million), breast (1.67 million), and colorectal (1.36 million); the most common causes of cancer death were lung cancer (1.6 million deaths), liver cancer (745,000 deaths), and stomach cancer (723,000 deaths). © 2014 UICC.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer.

            The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of patients with esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer is not well established. We compared chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in this patient population. We randomly assigned patients with resectable tumors to receive surgery alone or weekly administration of carboplatin (doses titrated to achieve an area under the curve of 2 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) for 5 weeks and concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week), followed by surgery. From March 2004 through December 2008, we enrolled 368 patients, 366 of whom were included in the analysis: 275 (75%) had adenocarcinoma, 84 (23%) had squamous-cell carcinoma, and 7 (2%) had large-cell undifferentiated carcinoma. Of the 366 patients, 178 were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, and 188 to surgery alone. The most common major hematologic toxic effects in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group were leukopenia (6%) and neutropenia (2%); the most common major nonhematologic toxic effects were anorexia (5%) and fatigue (3%). Complete resection with no tumor within 1 mm of the resection margins (R0) was achieved in 92% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 69% in the surgery group (P<0.001). A pathological complete response was achieved in 47 of 161 patients (29%) who underwent resection after chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative complications were similar in the two treatment groups, and in-hospital mortality was 4% in both. Median overall survival was 49.4 months in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 24.0 months in the surgery group. Overall survival was significantly better in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.495 to 0.871; P=0.003). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer. The regimen was associated with acceptable adverse-event rates. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation [KWF Kankerbestrijding]; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR487.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

              The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and 18F-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, false-positive, 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 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.84), 0.50 (0.41–0.60), and 0.57 (0.43–0.70), respectively, and specificities were 0.70 (0.65–0.75), 0.83 (0.77–0.89), and 0.85 (0.76–0.95), respectively. Diagnostic performance did not differ significantly across these tests. For detection of celiac lymph node metastases by EUS, sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (0.72–0.99) and 0.96 (0.92–1.00), respectively. For abdominal lymph node metastases by CT, these values were 0.42 (0.29–0.54) and 0.93 (0.86–1.00), respectively. For distant metastases, sensitivity and specificity were 0.71 (0.62–0.79) and 0.93 (0.89–0.97) for FDG-PET and 0.52 (0.33–0.71) and 0.91 (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).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Transl Med
                Ann Transl Med
                ATM
                Annals of Translational Medicine
                AME Publishing Company
                2305-5839
                2305-5847
                May 2021
                May 2021
                : 9
                : 10
                : 904
                Affiliations
                [1 ]deptDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital , Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA;
                [2 ]deptDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center , Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes

                Contributions: (I) Conception and design: None; (II) Administrative support: Laura Patterson; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: None; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: None; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: Both authors; (VI) Manuscript writing: Both authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: Both authors.

                Correspondence to: Eric J. Schmidlin, MD. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115, USA. Email: eschmidlin@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu .
                Article
                atm-09-10-904
                10.21037/atm-20-2909
                8184422
                34164538
                3e7d8985-2d48-42b0-9ee8-3b517c37f107
                2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.

                Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.

                History
                : 27 March 2020
                : 15 May 2020
                Categories
                Review Article on Innovations and Updates in Esophageal Surgery

                esophageal cancer,magnetic resonance imaging (mri),computed tomography (ct),2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (fdg-pet)

                Comments

                Comment on this article