Cargando…

Relevance of endoscopic ultrasound in the management of esophagus cancer therapy

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this case series study by retrospective analysis was to determine the relevance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in therapeutic decision esophageal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using medical records of the Department of Endoscopy of Santa Casa de São Paulo, we have coll...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Assef, M., Rossini, L., Araki, O., Nakao, F., Silva, J., Duenas, W., Gagliardi, D., Fabricio, V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4569914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26425516
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The objective of this case series study by retrospective analysis was to determine the relevance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in therapeutic decision esophageal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using medical records of the Department of Endoscopy of Santa Casa de São Paulo, we have collected data from 16 patients, in 4 years, diagnosed of esophageal cancer, and presented in the form of clinical cases to a specialist surgeon in esophageal cancer and a clinical oncologist, for therapeutic evaluation before and after the outcome of EUS. RESULTS: Both of them choose non-resective and not curative methods (68.8% by surgeon vs. 87.5% oncologist) before EUS. The best treatment by the surgeon was chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy associated (25%) and palliative endoscopic prostheses (25%), and by the oncologist, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy associated (56.2%). After EUS, the resective surgical treatment was the both choice in only 6.2% of cases, and the rest of 93.8%, non-resective. The surgeon choice was chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy associated (44%), and oncologist choice was neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy associated (44%). Analysis by the Chi-square method, comparing respective versus non-resective treatment, surgeon versus oncologist, with and without the EUS, obtained values of P = 0.39 and P = 0.46, respectively. The comparison between healing and non-healing treatment had the same P value. Regarding the change in behavior (resective vs. non-resective), there was a change of approach by the surgeon in 25% of cases (P = 0.17) and the oncologist moved conduct in 6.25% of cases. Comparing the changing of behavior among experts, the P value was 0.33. Despite evidence of behavior change after the EUS, the statistical point of view, the P value had no significant relevance. The main factor involved is probably due to a reduced number of sample cases. However, this is a pilot study, and is needed other with a larger number of cases. CONCLUSION: The data obtained allow us to conclude that EUS proved to be an important test for the change in staging and therapeutic management of esophageal cancer.