Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 45(2); 2012 > Article
Focused Review Series: What Should We Know about EUS-FNA? Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Hollow Viscus Cancer
Eun Young Kim
Clinical Endoscopy 2012;45(2):124-127.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.124
Published online: June 30, 2012

Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

Correspondence: Eun Young Kim. Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, 33 Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-718, Korea. Tel: +82-53-650-4092, Fax: +82-53-628-4005, kimey@cu.ac.kr
• Received: May 24, 2012   • Revised: June 3, 2012   • Accepted: June 4, 2012

Copyright © 2012 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 5,846 Views
  • 25 Download
  • 1 Crossref
  • 1 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Accurate cancer staging is essential in patients with hollow viscus malignancy to decide therapeutic modalities. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered as the best modality for local staging of hollow viscus cancer. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a minimally invasive and effective sampling method. EUS-FNA should be applied when positive diagnosis of malignancy can possibly change the choice of therapeutic options. EUS in conjunction with EUS-FNA can optimize stage-directed therapy which is helpful in selecting minimally invasive treatment option including endoscopic treatment and avoiding unnecessary surgery in advanced cases.
  • Keywords: Endosonography; Fine needle biopsy; Staging; Neoplasms
Accurate diagnosis of tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging and stage-based therapy is essential for the management of hollow viscus malignancy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the best modality for the delineation of gut wall layers and adjacent structures.1 For that reason, EUS is well utilized for the evaluation of invasion depth of hollow viscus cancer (T staging). In addition, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a minimally invasive, highly accurate, and safe procedure for the diagnosis of lymph node (LN) metastasis (N staging). EUS in combination with EUS-FNA has been already proved for its uncountable value on patient management with hollow viscus cancer.2
Guiding role of EUS, especially of EUS-FNA, on the process of selecting treatment strategy for esophageal, gastric and rectal cancers are reviewed in this paper.
Currently, EUS is considered to be the most accurate locoregional staging technique for patients with esophageal cancer. The diagnostic sensitivities of EUS in esophageal T staging and N staging were reported as 85% to 95% and 70% to 80%, respectively, which are superior to those of computed tomography (CT).3 When performed before treatment, EUS T staging is not only a guide for therapy but also a good prognostic tool and a predictive measure to determine whether complete resection would be feasible.4
EUS and EUS-FNA have important position in esophageal cancer staging. In fact, they may reveal an advanced stage cancer and perhaps enable physicians to change the treatment plan to avoid unnecessary surgery. A study aimed at demonstrating the impact of EUS on the esophageal cancer staging and finally on patient management and survival has demonstrated over 24% to 29% of change in patient management strategies after the EUS staging.5 Another study estimated the occurrence of management change after the EUS and EUS-FNA in patients with esophageal cancer to find similar results. While the initial management recommendations were based on history, physical examination, upper endoscopy, and CT scan results, EUS prompted a change of management in 24% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12% to 36%) of the studied cases. Findings from EUS-FNA have changed the management strategy an additional 8% (95% CI, 6% to 15%) of the cases.6 It was shown, in another study, that EUS-FNA has altered the management strategy in as high as 67% of patients.7 Addition of EUS-FNA to EUS is generally recommended when the histopathologic result of EUS-FNA can influence the diagnosis or choice of therapeutic options. In a study, EUS-FNA was performed in cases where abdominal ultrasound or CT guided biopsy was not capable of providing definite diagnosis. EUS-FNA was also used when metastatic lesion was suspected during EUS and malignant finding of biopsy could possibly change the subsequent treatment options. EUS-FNA had clinical impact in 14 out of 108 patients (13%).8 EUS with EUS-FNA may reduce the total expenses of esophageal cancer patients in advanced stage by preventing unnecessary surgery. When 60 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer were examined with EUS, the accuracies of EUS with EUS-FNA in T and N staging were 83% and 89%, respectively. This study suggested EUS guided therapy can potentially decrease the cost of care by $740,424 ($12,340/patient) by reducing the number of thoracotomies.9
The 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System was released recently.10 There are several changes in the new edition on the staging of esophageal cancer. T4 is subdivided into T4A (resectable cancer invasion) and T4B (unresectable cancer invasion). N is subclassified based on the number of positive regional LNs (N1, 1 to 2 nodes; N2, 3 to 6 nodes; N3, ≥7 nodes). M staging is redefined based on the presence of distant metastasis, and the term nonregional LN is eliminated. As a result, celiac axis LN metastasis, which was regarded as M1a stage previously, is now scored as a regional nodal disease. This change may reduce the value of EUS-FNA in the management of esophageal cancer patients with celiac axis LN metastasis which was not detected by CT but only by EUS. Nevertheless, poor prognosis of such cases still preserves diagnostic usefulness of EUS-FNA.
In conclusion, EUS is recommended in all cases with potentially curable esophageal cancer diagnosed with helical CT. Also EUS-FNA should be recommended for suspicious nodes as required to optimize treatment strategy and to assess prognosis.
A meta-analysis reported that pooled sensitivities of EUS for staging of gastric T1, T2, T3, T4, N1, and N2 cancers were 88.1%, 82.3%, 89.7%, 99.2%, 58.2%, and 64.9%, respectively. These results suggest that EUS is highly accurate in gastric TNM staging, especially of advanced stage.11 In a study comparing helical CT and EUS for preoperative diagnosis of gastric gastric cancer, accuracies of CT in T and N staging were 76% and 70%, respectively. In comparison, EUS provided accuracies of 86% and 90% in T and N staging, respectively, in another study.12 We should keep in mind, however, that the presence of ulcer, fibrosis, inflammation and microinvasion can cause over-staging or under-staging with EUS. Over-staging of T2 cancer is usually considered as a major problem of gastric cancer staging by EUS. These misdiagnoses may cause incorrect assignment to neoadjuvant treatments. In addition, because a cancer located in the upper third of the stomach, with depressed morphology and the size of larger than 3 cm in diameter has a tendency of lowering diagnostic accuracy of EUS, these factors should be taken account when therapeutic options are weighed.13
Since endoscopic therapy is considered as an appropriate alternative therapeutic modality for early stage gastric cancer, the importance of EUS in superficial gastric cancer staging is attracting more attention recently. Kim et al.14 reported high accuracy in diagnosing mucosal gastric cancer by using high-frequency catheter EUS, which was suitable for endoscopic submucosal dissection with 97.6% of diagnostic accuracy.
In one of the above mentioned studies,8 further evaluation with EUS after abdominal US and CT staging of gastric cancer showed additional evidence of metastasis such as mediastinal or para-aortic LNs, ascites, and hepatic lesion. Clinical impact of EUS-FNA was 8% when EUS-FNA was performed for these lesions. Another study also revealed huge impact of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of gastric cancer metastasis.15 Mediastinal LNs, hepatic lesion, adrenal gland, and ascites were targeted by EUS-FNA and treatment strategy was adjusted as a result in 15% of the cases.15
One of the major revisions in the 7th edition of AJCC TNM Staging System for gastric cancer is on N staging. N is subclassified, as with the esophageal cancer, based on the number of positive regional LNs (N1, 1 to 2 nodes; N2, 3 to 6 nodes; N3, ≥7 nodes). Another notable change is that positive peritoneal cytology is classified as metastatic disease (M1). EUS could detect ascites missed by CT scan.16,17 In a study, when EUS-FNA was performed for detected ascites, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA for diagnosing malignant ascites was 94%, 100%, 100%, and 89%, respectively.18 Further studies are needed to define the clinical impact of EUS-FNA in detection of malignant ascites missed by CT.
TNM staging guides treatment decision and is a strong prognostic tool in rectal cancers. Accurate staging and stage-based adequate selection of multidisciplinary management options is essential to maximize the chance of cure and minimize tumor recurrence or treatment complications. As with esophageal and gastric malignancies, EUS is the method of choice in T staging of rectal cancers. According to a meta-analysis, pooled sensitivities of EUS for staging of rectal T1, T2, T3, and T4 were 87.8%, 80.5%, 96.4%, and 95.4%, respectively, and pooled specificities were 98.3%, 95.6%, 90.6%, and 98.3%, respectively.19 In N staging, a meta-analysis showed pooled sensitivity of 73.2% and specificity of 75.8%.20 In comparison, previous studies reported 65% to 75% and 55% to 65%, respectively for T and N staging accuracies of CT and 75% to 85% and 60% to 65%, respectively for those of magnetic resonance imaging. Identification of locally advanced stage such as T3-4N0 or TxN1-2 is important because such patients can benefit from preoperative chemoradiation therapy. High diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of EUS demonstrated by the meta-analyses strongly suggest that EUS should be considered for T and N staging of rectal cancer preoperatively.
The number of nodes involved with metastasis influences prognosis. N staging was revised in the 7th edition of AJCC TNM Staging System for colorectal cancer. N is subclassified as N1a (metastasis in 1 regional node), N1b (metastasis in 2 to 3 nodes), N2a (metastasis in 4 to 6 nodes), and N2b (metastasis in 7 or more nodes). The echo features and the size of nodes are often inadequate for differentiating between benign and metastatic nodes. EUS-FNA can add accuracy in the diagnosis of locoregional metastatic disease. When EUS-FNA was performed in 77 patients for colorectal cancer staging or for the evaluation of rectal or peri-rectal masses, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were reported as 89% and 79%, respectively.21
In addition, detection of extramesenteric LN metastases (M1 disease in the 7th edition of AJCC TNM Staging System) by EUS-FNA can affect therapeutic decisions for the rectal cancer. In a 6-year retrospective cohort study, EUS-FNA of extramesenteric LN resulted in tumor upstaging in 48% of patients with negative findings by CT. Extramesenteric LN metastases outside of standard radiation fields or total mesorectal excision resection margins were detected by EUS-FNA in 41 of 316 patients (13%) with primary rectal cancer.22
EUS-FNA also allows early detection of local recurrence. About 15% to 25% of patients experience local recurrence after the resection of rectal cancer, and majority of them are peri-anastomotic or pelvic recurrence. EUS-FNA is more sensitive than CT in diagnosing these cases. In the follow-up of post-operative rectal cancer patients, findings from EUS-FNA had a considerable impact on the management in 26% of patients.23
EUS is one of the powerful methods to observe gastrointestinal wall layers and LNs in its vicinity. Staging with EUS in combination with EUS-FNA, if necessary, is essential for patients with hollow viscus malignancy in deciding therapeutic modalities. Reported diagnostic accuracy of EUS in the staging of hollow viscus cancer is summarized in Table 1. EUS-FNA is a minimally invasive and effective sampling method. EUS-FNA should be applied when positive diagnosis of malignancy can possibly change the choice of therapeutic options. Many studies have been performed to evaluate the clinical impact of EUS-FNA in patient with hollow viscus cancer. The researchers demonstrated the importance of EUS-FNA on confirming metastasis in patient with hollow viscus malignancy. Frequent targets included mediastinal LNs, left hepatic lobe, adrenal gland and ascites. In summary, EUS and EUS-FNA have important roles in clinical settings, especially for hollow viscus malignancy, with their ability to obtain cytologic or histologic materials to avoid unnecessary surgeries. EUS-FNA should be performed when the cytopathological or histopathological results can influence the diagnosis or therapeutic strategy.
  • 1. Reddy Y, Willert RP. Endoscopic ultrasound: what is it and when should it be used? Clin Med 2009;9:539–543.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 2. Jenssen C, Dietrich CF. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and trucut biopsy in gastroenterology: an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2009;23:743–759.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, Antillon D, Ibdah JA, Antillon MR. Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: a meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:1479–1490.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Mariette C, Balon JM, Maunoury V, Taillier G, Van Seuningen I, Triboulet JP. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography as a predictor of long-term survival in oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2003;90:1367–1372.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Dyer SM, Levison DB, Chen RY, Lord SJ, Blamey S. Systematic review of the impact of endoscopic ultrasound on the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:25–35.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Gines A, Cassivi SD, Martenson JA Jr, et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography and physician specialty on the management of patients with esophagus cancer. Dis Esophagus 2008;21:241–250.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Morris JM, Suzuki H, McKernan M, Stephen M, Stuart RC, Stanley AJ. Impact of EUS-FNA in the management of patients with oesophageal cancer. Scott Med J 2009;54:30–33.Article
  • 8. Mortensen MB, Pless T, Durup J, Ainsworth AP, Plagborg GJ, Hovendal C. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies. A prospective study. Endoscopy 2001;33:478–483.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Chang KJ, Soetikno RM, Bastas D, Tu C, Nguyen PT. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound combined with fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the management of esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 2003;35:962–966.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 2010. 7th ed. New York: Springer.
  • 11. Puli SR, Batapati Krishna Reddy J, Bechtold ML, Antillon MR, Ibdah JA. How good is endoscopic ultrasound for TNM staging of gastric cancers? A meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:4011–4019.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Habermann CR, Weiss F, Riecken R, et al. Preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma: comparison of helical CT and endoscopic US. Radiology 2004;230:465–471.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Park JM, Ahn CW, Yi X, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography for prediction of tumor depth in gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 2011;11:109–115.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Kim GH, Park do Y, Kida M, et al. Accuracy of high-frequency catheter-based endoscopic ultrasonography according to the indications for endoscopic treatment of early gastric cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;25:506–511.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Hassan H, Vilmann P, Sharma V. Impact of EUS-guided FNA on management of gastric carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:500–504.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Lee YT, Ng EK, Hung LC, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosing ascites and predicting peritoneal metastases in gastric cancer patients. Gut 2005;54:1541–1545.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 17. Chen CH, Yang CC, Yeh YH. Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: the prognostic usefulness of ascites detected by endoscopic ultrasound. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;35:321–327.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Kaushik N, Khalid A, Brody D, McGrath K. EUS-guided paracentesis for the diagnosis of malignant ascites. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:908–913.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Reddy JB, Choudhary A, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:254–265.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, Choudhary A, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound to diagnose nodal invasion by rectal cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1255–1265.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Gleeson FC, Clain JE, Papachristou GI, et al. Prospective assessment of EUS criteria for lymphadenopathy associated with rectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:896–903.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Gleeson FC, Clain JE, Rajan E, Topazian MD, Wang KK, Levy MJ. EUS-FNA assessment of extramesenteric lymph node status in primary rectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:897–905.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Hünerbein M, Totkas S, Moesta KT, Ulmer C, Handke T, Schlag PM. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the postoperative follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. Surgery 2001;129:164–169.ArticlePubMed
Table 1
Accuracy of EUS with 95% Confidence Intervals for T and N Staging of Hollow Viscus Cancer
ce-45-124-i001.jpg

DOR, diagnostic odds ratio.

a)Results of endoscopic ultrasound alone; b)Results of endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Endoscopic Ultrasound, Where Are We Now in 2012?
      Eun Young Kim
      Clinical Endoscopy.2012; 45(3): 321.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Hollow Viscus Cancer
      Clin Endosc. 2012;45(2):124-127.   Published online June 30, 2012
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.124
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Related articles
    Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Hollow Viscus Cancer
    Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Hollow Viscus Cancer

    Accuracy of EUS with 95% Confidence Intervals for T and N Staging of Hollow Viscus Cancer

    DOR, diagnostic odds ratio.

    a)Results of endoscopic ultrasound alone; b)Results of endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration.
    Table 1 Accuracy of EUS with 95% Confidence Intervals for T and N Staging of Hollow Viscus Cancer

    DOR, diagnostic odds ratio.

    a)Results of endoscopic ultrasound alone; b)Results of endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration.

    Table 1

    Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
    © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
    Close layer
    TOP