Siewert type I and II oesophageal adenocarcinoma: sensitivity/specificity of computed tomography, positron emission tomography and endoscopic ultrasound for assessment of lymph node metastases in groups of thoracic and abdominal lymph node stations
Abstract OBJECTIVES In Siewert type I/II oesophageal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)-CT and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for assessment of the N descriptor in defined groups of lymph nodes were investigated. METHODS CT, P...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 2019-04, Vol.28 (4), p.518-525 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
OBJECTIVES
In Siewert type I/II oesophageal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)-CT and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for assessment of the N descriptor in defined groups of lymph nodes were investigated.
METHODS
CT, PET/CT, EUS images and the pathological data of 101 oesophageal adenocarcinomas submitted to primary resection were compared. The lymph nodes were identified as (a) right paratracheal/subcarinal/pulmonary ligament; (b) paraoesophageal; (c) paracardial; (d) left gastric artery, lesser curvature; (e) coeliac trunk, hepatic/splenic artery.
RESULTS
Of the 2451 lymph nodes identified, 273 (11.1%) were histologically positive. Overall sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive value for detection of lymph nodes metastatic were respectively: CT sensitivity 39%, specificity 86%, negative 58% and positive 74% predictive value; PET/CT sensitivity 30%, specificity 98%, negative 58% and positive 93% predictive value; EUS sensitivity 50%, specificity 81%, negative 72% and positive 62% predictive value. The sensitivity of CT, PET/CT and EUS in the thoracic nodal groups (a) and (b) was, respectively, 58.3%, 7.1% and 87.5% and 33.3%, 20% and 80%. Sensitivity was below 47% for all tests in the abdominal nodal groups. In contrast, specificity (88.6–100%) was super imposable in all nodal groups. The strength of agreement among the 3 imaging techniques was poor (kappa < 0.30) for the thoracic anatomical groups of interest: (a) lower paratracheal/subcarinal/pulmonary ligament and (b) paraoesophageal; it was moderate/good (kappa >0.30) for the abdominal N groups of interest: c, d and e.
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic performance of CT, PET and EUS for assessing the N descriptor in the paracardial and abdominal stations close to the primary tumour is not satisfactory. EUS can efficiently assess the presence/absence of nodal metastases in the thoracic stations.
Clinical trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03529968 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1569-9285 1569-9285 |
DOI: | 10.1093/icvts/ivy314 |