• Annals of surgery · Feb 2020

    Meta Analysis

    Accuracy of Detecting Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

    • Ben M Eyck, Barbera D Onstenk, Bo J Noordman, Daan Nieboer, Spaander Manon C W MCW Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Roelf Valkema, Sjoerd M Lagarde, Wijnhoven Bas P L BPL Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., and van Lanschot J Jan B JJB Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands..
    • Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
    • Ann. Surg. 2020 Feb 1; 271 (2): 245-256.

    ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the accuracy of endoscopic biopsies, EUS, and 18F-FDG PET(-CT) for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer.Summary Of Background DataAfter nCRT, one-third of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. Before an active surveillance strategy could be offered to these patients, clinically complete responders should be accurately identified.MethodsEmbase, Medline, Cochrane, and Web-of-Science were searched until February 2018 for studies on accuracy of endoscopic biopsies, EUS, or PET(-CT) for detecting locoregional residual disease after nCRT for squamous cell- or adenocarcinoma. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using random-effect meta-analyses.ResultsForty-four studies were included for meta-analyses. For detecting residual disease at the primary tumor site, 12 studies evaluated endoscopic biopsies, 11 qualitative EUS, 14 qualitative PET, 8 quantitative PET using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and 7 quantitative PET using percentage reduction of SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax). Pooled sensitivities and specificities were 33% and 95% for endoscopic biopsies, 96% and 8% for qualitative EUS, 74% and 52% for qualitative PET, 69% and 72% for PET-SUVmax, and 73% and 63% for PET-%ΔSUVmax. For detecting residual nodal disease, 11 studies evaluated qualitative EUS with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 57%, respectively. In subgroup analyses, sensitivity of PET-%ΔSUVmax and EUS for nodal disease was higher in squamous cell carcinoma than adenocarcinoma.ConclusionsCurrent literature suggests insufficient accuracy of endoscopic biopsies, EUS, and 18F-FDG PET(-CT) as single modalities for detecting residual disease after nCRT for esophageal cancer.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…