Clinical value of endoscopicultrsaonography and multi-slice spiral CT in Siewert Ⅱand Ⅲ type adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3766.2018.03.006
- VernacularTitle: 超声内镜和多层螺旋CT在SiewertⅡ和Ⅲ型食管胃结合部腺癌术前TN分期中的临床应用价值
- Author:
Guoliang ZHENG
1
;
Jiaju LI
2
;
Guoqing XIANG
3
;
Jia ZHU
3
;
Yan ZHAO
1
;
Haitao ZHU
1
;
Dong YANG
1
;
Yue WANG
1
;
Jun ZHANG
1
;
Xiangyu MENG
1
;
Zhichao ZHENG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Gastric Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University & Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang 110042, China
2. Departmentof Imaging, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University & Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang 110042, China
3. Department of Endoscopy, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University & Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang 110042, China
- Publication Type:Clinical Trail
- Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction;
Gastrectomy;
Endoscopic ultrasonography;
Multi-slice Spiral CT
- From:
Chinese Journal of Oncology
2018;40(3):191-195
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and Multi-slice Spiral CT (MSCT) in the preoperativestaging of tumor(T) and lymph node (N) metastasis in patients with SiewertⅡand Ⅲ typeadenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction(AEG).
Methods:Clinical data of 145 Siewert Ⅱ and Ⅲ type AEG patientswithout preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Theyall received preoperative EUS and MSCT examination and underwent surgical resection, and the results of EUS and MSCT were compared with their postoperative pathologic staging.
Results:The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS for T stage in Siewert Ⅱ and Ⅲ type AEG were higher than those of MSCT. The total accuracy of EUS and MSCT were 90.3% and 63.5%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=29.52, P<0.01). The sensitivity of EUS for T1, T2 and T3 were 89.5%, 91.1% and 85.2%, respectively, which were significantly higher than 42.1%, 66.7% and 29.6% of MSCT (χ2=9.47, P<0.01 for T1; χ2=8.07, P<0.01 for T2; χ2=17.40, P<0.01 for T3). In addition, the total accuracy of EUS and MSCT for lymph node metastasis status of Siewert Ⅱ and Ⅲ type AEG were 75.9% and 64.8%, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference(χ2=4.23, P=0.04). The sensitivity of EUS for N1 and N2 were 82.1% and 79.2%, respectively, which were significantly higher than 53.6% and 60.4% of MSCT (χ2=5.24, P=0.02; χ2=4.48, P=0.03). There was no statistical significance for sensitivity of EUS and MSCT in N0 and N3 (P>0.05).
Conclusion:EUS diagnosis of T and N staging in Siewert Ⅱ/Ⅲ type AEG showed significantly greater performance than MSCT.
