Esophageal Cancer Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2003. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 15, 2003; 9(2): 219-224
Published online Feb 15, 2003. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v9.i2.219
Preoperative TN staging of esophageal cancer: Comparison of miniprobe ultrasonography, spiral CT and MRI
Ling-Fei Wu, Bing-Zhou Wang, Jia-Lin Feng, Wei-Rong Cheng, Xiao-Hua Xu, Zhi-Chao Zheng, Department of Gastroenterology, Department of Information, Guo-Rui Liu, Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Surgery, Department of Pathology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, Guangdong Province China
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the work.
Supported by Guangdong Medical Science Fund, No. A1999429
Correspondence to: Dr. Ling-Fei Wu, Department of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University MedicalCollege, Shantou 515041, Guangdong Province China. lingfeiwu@21cn.com
Telephone: +86-754-8355461 Fax: +86-754-8346543
Received: July 20, 2002
Revised: August 4, 2002
Accepted: August 29, 2002
Published online: February 15, 2003

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the value of miniprobe sonography (MPS), spiral CT and MR imaging (MRI) in the tumor and regional lymph node staging of esophageal cancer.

METHODS: Eight-six patients (56 men and 30 women; age range of 39-73 years, mean 62 years) with esophageal carcinoma were staged preoperatively with imaging modalities. Of them, 81 (94%) had squamous cell carcinoma, 4 (5%) adenocarcinoma, and 1 (1%) adenoacanthoma. Eleven patients (12%) had malignancy of the upper one third, 41 (48%) of the mid-esophagus and 34 (40%) of the distal one third. Forty-one were examined by spiral CT in whom 13 were co-examined by MPS, and forty-five by MRI in whom 18 were also co-examined by MPS. These imaging results were compared with the findings of the histopathologic examination for resected specimens.

RESULTS: In staging the depth of tumor growth, MPS was significantly more accurate (84%) than spiral CT and MRI (68% and 60%, respectively, P < 0.05). The specificity and sensitivity were 82% and 85% for MPS; 60% and 69% for spiral CT; and 40% and 63% for MRI, respectively. In staging regional lymph nodes, spiral CT was more accurate (78%) than MPS and MRI (71% and 64%, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant. The specificity and sensitivity were 79% and 77% for spiral CT; 75% and 68% for MPS; and 68% and 62% for MRI, respectively.

CONCLUSION: MPS is superior to spiral CT or MRI for T staging, especially in early esophageal cancer. However, the three modalities have the similar accuracy in N staging. Spiral CT or MRI is helpful for the detection of far-distance metastasis in esophageal cancer.




INTRODUCTION

Patients with esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis because on the onset of symptoms and the final diagnosis, most tumors have reached an advanced stage[1-5]. Resection of esophageal cancers is the only curative method, but is limited to the early stages of the disease[6-10]. Therefore, the early diagnosis and an accurate staging are very important for the surgery.

Esophageal tumor is a common disease in China[11-17]. Shantou is a high-risk region. The incidence of the disease ranges from 60-150 per 100000 population and the mortality is as high as 90-134 per 100000 population[18,19]. Currently, several cross sectional imaging techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been widely used to provide preoperative staging and follow-up information in these patients[1,20-26]. Unfortunately, all these techniques have their limitations.

Miniprobe endosonography (MPS) is a new intracavitary technique[27], especially in China[28,29]. In staging esophageal tumors, previously most studies used the 1987 TNM classification system[30]. In this study, we adopted the new (1997) TNM classification standard[31]. The purpose of our study is to compare the accuracy of the three different modalities in preoperative TN staging in patients with esophageal tumors and to analyze their advantages and limitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients

From February 1997 to May 2001, 86 patients (56 men and 30 women; age range of 39-73 years, mean 62 years) with esophageal carcinoma were staged preoperatively with imaging modalities. All patients were operated on and staging was done either by histopathological assessment of the resected specimens, or by intraoperative findings, or both. The findings of histopathologic examination were as a gold standard and compared with the results of MPS, spiral CT, and MRI. Of the 86 patients, 81 (94%) had squamous cell carcinoma, 4 (5%) adenocarcinoma, and 1 (1%) had adenoacanthoma. Eleven patients (12%) had malignancy of the upper one third, forty-one (48%) of the mid-esophagus and thirty-four (40%) of the distal one third. Forty-one patients were examined by spiral CT in which 13 were co-examined by MPS, and 45 patients were examined by MRI in whom 18 were also co-examined by MPS. Of the 22 stenotic tumors in this group, 12 were examined by MPS and the others by spiral CT or MRI.

Imaging procedure

Miniprobe sonography system (Sp-501, Fujinon Co. Ltd, Japan) was used to obtain ultrasound images. A miniprobe (2.6 mm in diameter, 2.05 m in length, 12 MHz or 15 MHz in frequency) was passed through the biopsy channel of a video-endoscope (Olympus XQ-200) during routine endoscopy. Examinations were performed by one endoscopist using the following technique. Premedication with 5 mg midazolam was administered intravenously to 31 patients. First, a standard endoscopy was performed to determine the exact location and size of the tumor. Then the tip of the endoscope was placed 2 to 3 cm proximally to the tumor. The lumen was filled with 50-300 mL of deaerated water to achieve acoustic coupling between transducer and wall. The normal esophageal wall is known to be visualized by MPS as a five-layer structure: (1) mucosa (hyperechoic), (2) muscularis mucosa (hypoechoic), (3) submucosa (hyperechoic), (4) muscularis propria (hypoechoic), and (5) adventitia (hyperechoic). TN staging of MPS was modified according to the 1997 standard of TNM classification[31]. Depth of invasion of the primary tumor was assessed as follows: T1, tumor invading the lamina propria or submucosa; T2, tumor invading the muscularis pripria and leading to complete or nearly complete loss of the layer structure, but with a smooth outer margin; T3, tumor invading the adventitia and surrounding fat tissues; and T4, tumor invading adjacent structures. The criteria for the assessment of lymph node metastasis were used according to our previous standard[28]. In short, the hypoechoic pattern, clearly defined boundaries, especially the direct extension from the primary tumor were considered malignant nodes. In contrast, the hyperechoic pattern and fuzzy borders were considered benign nodes.

Spiral CT scans were obtained by means of a commercially available unit (Tomoscan AV EP-Plus, Phillip) with 10-mm thick contiguous sections from the pulmonary apices to the adrenal region. Enhanced CT scan was performed in a biphasic mode with a rapid intravenous injection of 50 mL iothalamate meglumine (Ultravist) in 38 patients. Three hundred mL of water was administrated to the patients with distal neoplasms before the CT scanning in order to assess gastric extension. Spiral CT imagins were reviewed by an experienced radiologist, and TN stages were evaluated using the same criteria described below for MR examinations.

MR imaging was performed with a permanent magnet operating at 0.15T (ASP-015, Annke) with a 128 × 56 acquisition matrix. Multiple spin-echo pulse sequences were obtained in the transaxial plane at repetition times (TR) of 500, 1800, or 2500 ms and echo times (TE) of 35, 90 or 120 ms. In some patients, the sagittal and coronal images were obtained. T1-weighted images were obtained at repetition times (TR) of 500 ms and echo times (TE) of 30 ms, and T2-weighted images were obtained at TR of 1500-1800 ms and TE of 90-120 ms. Transaxial images with contiguous 8-10 mm sections were obtained from the pulmonary apices, including supra clavicular fossas to the upper abdomen, including the entire liver. Coronal and sagittal images with contiguous 8-10 mm sections were obtained in 37 patients, and 0.5% Gd-DTPA was orally administered to distend the stomach before the MR examination. ECG-gated scans were not used in all patients. Five mm esophageal thickness was used as the upper limits of normal esophageal wall. Any increase beyond this was considered abnormal. Since CT or MRI cannot differentiate each layer of the esophageal wall, according to Botet et al[32] standard, thickening of the wall greater than 5 mm and less than 15 mm was diagnosed as modified T2, thickening of the wall greater than 15 mm with irregularity of the outer margin as T3, and tumor invasion of adjacent structures such as the trachea, aortic pericardium, or vertebral body as T4. Lymph nodes greater than 10 mm in shortaxis diameter were considered abnormal. In contrast, lymph nodes less than 10 mm in diameter were considered benign nodes.

Statistics

The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of MPS, spiral CT and MRI were calculated using histopathologic staging as a gold standard. For T stage, the sensitivity is a measure of the ability of the three modalities to correctly stage T1/T2 and not overstage tumors as T3/T4, and conversely the specificity is a measure of the ability of the three modalities to correctly stage T3/T4 and not understage tumors as T1/T2[30]. A Chi-squared test was performed to assess the differences in staging accuracy by different methods. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS
Evaluation of tumor growth (T stage)

Table 1 shows the accuracy of the three modalities for predicting the T category. Of the 86 patients, 4 patients had T1 tumor, 8 T2, 34 T3 and 40 T4 by final histopathologic examination.

Table 1 Accuracy of T classification in esophageal cancers: MPS, spiral CT, MRI compared with histopathologic staging.
HistopathologynAccuracy (%)
MPSSpiral CTMRI
T144/4 (100)
T285/7 (71)3/5 (75)2/5 (40)
T3348/9 (89)11/14 (79)14/20 (70)
T4409/11 (82)14/22 (64)11/20 (55)
Total8626/31 (84)28/41 (68)27/45 (60)

Thirty-one patients were examined by MPS. It correctly diagnosed all 4 (100%) T1 tumors, 5 of 7 (71%)T2, 8 of 9 (89%) T3, and 9 of 11 (82%) T4. In stage T2, one was understaged and another was overstaged. In stage T3, only one tumor was misdiagnosed as T2. In stage T4, two tumors were understaged. The sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 85%, respectively. The overall accuracy of MPS was 84%.

Spiral CT was performed in 41 patients. Among them, 2 had T1 tumor, 3 T2, 14 T3 and 22 T4 by final histopathologic examination. In 5 T1/T2 tumors, 2 were overstaged, and 3 were staged as modified T2 correctly (75%). In stage T3, 2 tumors were understaged as T2 and 1 was overstaged, 11 of 14 were staged correctly (79%). In stage T4, 8 were misdiagnosed, and only 14 of 22 were staged correctly (64%). The sensitivity and specificity of T staging by spiral CT were 60% and 69%, respectively. The overall accuracy was 68%.

MRI was performed in 45 patients. Among them, 5 had T2 tumor, 20 T3 and 20 T4 by final histopathologic examination. No T1 tumor was examined by MRI. In stage T2, one was understaged and 2 were overstaged, only 2 T2 were staged correctly (40%). In stage T3, 2 tumors were understaged as T2 and 4 were overstaged, 14 of 20 were staged correctly (70%). In stage T4, 9 were misdiagnosed, and only 11 of 20 were staged correctly (55%). The sensitivity and specificity were 40% and 63%. The overall accuracy of MRI was 60%.

Evaluation of lymph node involvement (N stage)

Table 2 shows the accuracy of the three modalities for predicting the overall N category differentiated as N0 or N1. Among the 86 patients, 47 had histopathologically proved lymph node involvement.

Table 2 Accuracy of N classification in esophageal cancers: MPS, spiral CT, MRI compared to histopathologic staging.
HistopathologynAccuracy (%)
MPSSpiral CTMRI
N0399/12 (75)15/19 (79)13/19 (68)
N14713/19 (68)17/22 (77)16/26 (62)
Total8622/31 (71)32/41 (78)29/45 (64)

In 31 patients investigated by MPS, 19 had lymph node involvement and 12 had not by histopathologic examination. MPS correctly diagnosed 13 patients in 19 positive nodes. In 12 patients without lymph node involvement, MPS diagnosed 9 patients correctly. There were 3 false-positive and 6 false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 68%, 75%, and 71%, respectively.

Of 41 patients examined by spiral CT, 22 had lymph node involvement. Spiral CT showed 17 patients had regional lymph node metastasis in 22 positive patients. In 19 patients without lymph node involvement, spiral CT diagnosed 15 patients correctly. There were 4 false-positive and 5 false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 77%, 79%, and 78%, respectively.

Among 45 patients examined by MRI, 26 had lymph node involvement. MRI showed 16 had regional lymph node metastasis in 26 positive patients. In 19 patients without lymph node involvement, MRI diagnosed 13 patients correctly. There were 6 false-positive and 10 false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 62%, 68%, and 64%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

It was reported that accuracy rates of EUS were approximately 52%-92% in the assessment of the infiltration depth of esophageal cancer[33-39]. In our study, the overall accuracy of T staging was 84%. We think that the high resolution of MPS contributes the good results, 12MHz translator made it possible to differentiate esophageal histological structures and delineate the entire margins of tumors, especially in the superficial esophageal cancer. The penetration depth of good resolution ultrasound was about 6-8 cm, which could clearly visualize the tumor and the adjacent organs[40]. In some reports, T1 tumors were often overstaged as T2 because of the resultant obliteration of the submucosa and the muscularis propria[33]. Although one study reported no benefit of miniprobes in esophageal cancers[41], Menzel et al[42] carefully compared the effects of higher frequency miniprobes with conventional probes and concluded that MPS had a higher accuracy for T staging and similar accuracy for N staging in esophageal tumors. Akahoshi et al[43] also demonstrated the benefit of MPS in early gastric cancers. In this series, 4 T1 tumors (including one superficial mucosal carcinoma) were all correctly diagnosed because the tact border of muscularis propria was clearly visualized. In T2 tumor, the accuracy was 71%. One T2 tumor was overstaged as T3 because the inflammation and fibrosis were mistakenly interpreted as tumor extension through the muscularis propria. Another T2 tumor was understaged because the microscopic invasion beyond the submucosa was not discerned. For T3 tumors, only one was understaged due to inexperience. The tumor was larger and the invasion outside the muscularis propria was interpreted as an irregular outer margin of the muscularis propria. In T4 stage, two tumors were understaged because the adjacent malignant stricture (tracheal or bronchial invasion) was not discerned in a limited field of view. We thought that endosonographic wall penetration was a critical factor. Richards et al[44] also observed that ultrasound attenuation was a commonest reason which led to the error of diagnosis in the advanced tumor, in particular in stenotic tumors[45]. In addition, artifacts due to oblique scanning may also give rise to misrepresentation of the true depth of penetration, which was another deficient of MPS.

CT or MRI has been widely used in staging tumors of the upper intestinal tract. However, their diagnostic accuracy in evaluating esophageal carcinoma is controversial. Both of them have the same limitations, i.e. unable to discriminate the layer of the esophageal wall and to detect tumor spread through the muscular wall into adjacent tissues[32]. Evaluation of direct invasion by CT or MRI is based on two criteria: mass effect and loss of fat planes. When the trachea or bronchial wall is indented or displaced away by a tumor mass, the mass effect is present and invasion is presumed. The loss of fat plane between tumor and adjacent tissues is commonly used to predict aortic and pericardial invasion. According to the reports, the accuracy of CT or MRI in staging the local tumor infiltration ranged from 45% to 73%[46-51]. Quint et al[52] compared MRI with CT in the staging of esophageal tumors. In 12 patients evaluated, they found that both CT and MRI were 100% accurate in prediction of tracheobronchial invasion with an accuracy rate of 75% for aortic invasion and 88% for pericardial invasion. In a late review, Kelly et al[30] reported that the sensitivity of CT ranged from 40% to 80% and the specificity from 14% to 97%. In present study, the sensitivity of the three modalities ranged from 40% to 82% and the specificity from 63% to 85%. Three patients misdiagnosed by spiral CT and five patients by MRI were staged correctly by MPS, especially in T1-T2 tumors, which demonstrated the superiority of MPS. Spiral CT is an inspiring new technique. Our primary data showed that spiral CT was not optimistic, although spiral CT had a higher accuracy than MRI, no significant difference was found (P > 0.05). MPS appeared more accurate (84%) than spiral CT or MRI (68% or 60%, respectively, P < 0.05). Although strictly blinded approach was not taken in this study, our results continue to support the hypothesis that endosonography is superior to CT or MRI in the T staging of esophageal cancer[53-55].

MPS can only visualize lymph nodes close to the esophageal wall whereas CT and MRI can demonstrate both regional and distant lymph node metastases. For MPS, the differentiation of malignant lymph nodes from benign nodes could be made according to its size, distance from tumor and echo features. The round hypoechoic lymph nodes with a smoothly demarcated border and size greater than 5 mm had the greatest probability of malignancy[56]. Murata et al[57] used MPS to evaluate lymph nodes in different periesophageal areas and the accuracy being 88%. Other reported that the accuracy of EUS ranged from 68% to 92%[29,58-60]. In this study, the overall accuracy of MPS for diagnosing the N category was 71%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 68%. Our results were consistent with these reports.

We think that the lack of reliable criteria in N staging may be the main reason of low accuracy for MPS. The judging value of node size is still controversial. Some authors reported that nodes larger than 5 mm were not inflammatory in the resection specimens[33,61-64]. Tio et al[33] thought that enlarged lymph nodes were not necessarily cancerous and small nodes might be involved by tumors. We also observed that lymph nodes larger than 5 mm were inflammatory by pathological examination[28]. However, we believed that nodes greater than 10 mm, especially close to the primary tumor, rounder, darker, and more homogeneous had much more possibility of malignancy[20]. In addition, the morphology of tumors would also be another important factor affecting these results.

Holscher et al[65] thought that MPS was more accurate than CT or MRI in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases. Tio et al[33], however, pointed out that CT was superior to EUS for evaluating celiac lymph nodes due to nontraversable stenoses. In this series, the accuracy of spiral CT (78%) was higher than that of MPS or MRI (68%, 64%, respectively), but without significant difference (P > 0.05). The cause was not clear. We think that methodologies of study designs are related to these results, because different assessment conditions, such as technical parameters, anatomical location of tumors and patient characteristics could lead to different results[66]. For example, stenotic tumors were not included or accounted for different percentages in some studies[65]. Hordijk et al[45] assessed the influence of tumor stenosis on T staging accuracy of miniprobes. A lower accuracy (46%) was obtained with stenotic tumors than those with nontraversable tumors (82%). They postulated that the main reason lay in the short focal distance between the ultrasonic transducer and tumor hampered clear visualization of the wall layers and tumor penetration depth[45]. On the other hand, Kallimanis et al[66] reported that the degree of esophageal stenosis was an important criteria for lymph node involvement. Brugge et al[67] pointed out that T3 and T4 tumors were significantly thicker than T1 and T2 tumors. In our previous reports, about half of severe stenotic tumors were T3 and the other half T4[18]. Tio et al[33] indicated that the incidence of positive lymph nodes in the advanced tumors (T3/T4) was higher than the intramural tumors (T1/T2). In this study, 23 (27%) patients had stenotic tumors, in whom 10 patients had T3 and 13 had T4 and all had the lymph node involvement. No one had T2 or T1 stage. In other words, stenotic tumors had more possibilities of advanced stage and lymph node metastasis[18,68-72]. Our results strongly supported Brugge's view[67]. However, in 12 stenotic tumors examined by MPS, only 5 (42%) were correctly diagnosed. In another 10 stenotic tumors, 5 (5/6) were correctly diagnosed by Spiral CT and 3 (3/4) by MRI. Spiral CT and MRI appeared more accurate than MPS in stenotic tumors[30,71].

In clinical practice, two methods are commonly used to improve the accuracy of diagnosis. One is the use of contrast material, such as Ultravist on spiral CT or Gd-TDPA on MR imaging. Enhanced imaging can provide useful information of the blood supply of the lesions, which is helpful to distinguishing the malignant from the benign mass. The other one is the regulation of the section thickness. A section gap of 1-2 mm can help discover micro-lesions. However, Gd-DTPA has several disadvantages, such as non-specific distribution and slightly nephrotic toxicity[73]. To develop new tissue-specific contrast material would further improve the accuracy of spiral CT and MRI in TNM staging of gastricoesophageal carcinoma. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that in our study the MR equipment was of (first generation), which was also a reason for its low accuracy.

We think that the experience is an important factor to improve the accuracy of diagnosis[28]. Some problems such as the lack of training facilities, EUS courses and EUS laboratories limit the wider use of MPS. No atla of endosonography for different diseases has been published in the world so far. The interpretation of endosonographic images is dependent on the ultrasound knowledge or the results of animal experiments. The lack of experience in transabdominal ultrasonography hinders the reasonable interpretation for some complex image patterns. The ultrasound images are also unsteady. We observed that the esophageal wall can be visualized as a five-layer structure, but sometimes as a three-layer structure[28]. Other authors also reported the similar results[35,57]. The reason remains to be demonstrated. Many hospitals diagnosed the disease in cooperation between endoscopists and ultrasoundists. In addition, many surgeons have still doubted the role of endosonography. They would rather believe the results of spiral CT or MRI. In fact, CT or MRI plays an increasing role in ruling out the intra-abdominal metastasis so as to avoid unnecessary surgery[74]. We also think it unnecessary to make MPS examination for those patients who have lost the operation chance. To our knowledge, surgeons in our hospital make the therapeutic plans for the patients with advanced tumors mainly relying on the results of spiral CT or MRI. As a watter of contrast, they select the surgical procedures for the patients with stage T1 and T2 much more depending on the results of MPS. As a matter of fact, MPS appears superior to CT or MRI mainly in staging early tumors and the latter have much higher accuracy in determining the presence or extent of more distant metastases. A combination of endoscopic ultrasound including computer-assisted analysis and spiral CT or MRI are expected to provide a higher TNM accuracy[75].

Footnotes

Edited by Ma JY

References
1.  Krasna MJ, Jiao X, Sonett JR, Gamliel Z, Eslami A, Raefaly Y, Mao Y. Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic lymph node staging in esophageal cancer: do clinicopathological factors affect the outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1710-1713.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6]  [Article Influence: 0.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Wang N, Liu ZH, Ding F, Wang XQ, Zhou CN, Wu M. Down-regulation of gut-enriched Kruppel-like factor expression in esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:966-970.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
3.  Shen ZY, Xu LY, Chen MH, Shen J, Cai WJ, Zeng Y. Progressive transformation of immortalized esophageal epithelial cells. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:976-981.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
4.  Wilson KS, Wilson AG, Dewar GJ. Curative treatment for esophageal cancer: Vancouver Island Cancer Centre experience from 1993 to 1998. Can J Gastroenterol. 2002;16:361-368.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Nishimaki T, Tanaka O, Ando N, Ide H, Watanabe H, Shinoda M, Takiyama W, Yamana H, Ishida K, Isono K. Evaluation of the accuracy of preoperative staging in thoracic esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:2059-2064.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 60]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 61]  [Article Influence: 2.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Ando N, Niwa Y, Ohmiya N, Ito B, Sasaki Y, Goto H. Simultaneous multiple early cancers of esophagus and stomach treated by endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy. 2002;34:667-669.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 5]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7]  [Article Influence: 0.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Drudi FM, Trippa F, Cascone F, Righi A, Iascone C, Ricci P, David V, Passariello R. Esophagogram and CT versus endoscopic and surgical specimens in the diagnosis of esophageal carcinoma. Radiol Med. 2002;103:344-352.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
8.  Wu MY, Liang YR, Wu XY, Zhuang CX. Relationship between Egr-1 gene expression and apoptosis in esophageal carcinoma and precancerous lesions. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:971-975.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
9.  Leung SF, Griffith JF, Ahuja A, Chan AC. Influence of staging thoracic computed tomography on radiation therapy planning for esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Imaging. 2002;17:145-150.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3]  [Article Influence: 0.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Christein JD, Hollinger EF, Millikan KW. Prognostic factors associated with resectable carcinoma of the esophagus. Am Surg. 2002;68:258-262; discussion 262-263.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
11.  Shen ZY, Shen J, Li QS, Chen CY, Chen JY, Yi Z. Morphological and functional changes of mitochondria in apoptotic esophageal carcinoma cells induced by arsenic trioxide. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:31-35.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  Gao F, Yi J, Shi GY, Li H, Shi XG, Tang XM. The sensitivity of digestive tract tumor cells to As2O3 is associated with the inherent cellular level of reactive oxygen species. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:36-39.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
13.  Shen ZY, Shen WY, Chen MH, Shen J, Cai WJ, Yi Z. Nitric oxide and calcium ions in apoptotic esophageal carcinoma cells induced by arsenite. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:40-43.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
14.  Gu ZP, Wang YJ, Li JG, Zhou YA. VEGF165 antisense RNA suppresses oncogenic properties of human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:44-48.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
15.  Wang AH, Sun CS, Li LS, Huang JY, Chen QS. Relationship of tobacco smoking CYP1A1 GSTM1 gene polymorphism and esophageal cancer in Xi'an. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:49-53.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
16.  Zou JX, Wang LD, Shi ST, Yang GY, Xue ZH, Gao SS, Li YX, Yang CS. p53 gene mutations in multifocal esophageal precancerous and cancerous lesions in patients with esophageal cancer in high risk northern China. Shijie. Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi. 1999;7:280-284.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
17.  Deng LY, Zhang YH, Xu P, Yang SM, Yuan XB. Expression of IL 1betaconverting enzyme in 5-FU induced apoptosis in esophageal carcinoma cells. World J Gastroenterol. 1999;5:50-52.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
18.  Wu LF, Yao JG, Wu ZD, Wu MY. The significance of endoscopic classification in esophageal cancer. Najing Neijing. 1995;12:146-148.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
19.  Chen HB, Chen L, Zhang JK, Shen ZY, Su ZJ, Cheng SB, Chew EC. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 is associated with the nuclear matrix of esophageal carcinoma cells. World J Gastroenterol. 2001;7:788-791.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
20.  Rice TW. Clinical staging of esophageal carcinoma. CT, EUS, and PET. Chest Surg Clin N Am. 2000;10:471-485.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
21.  Nguyen NT, Roberts PF, Follette DM, Lau D, Lee J, Urayama S, Wolfe BM, Goodnight JE. Evaluation of minimally invasive surgical staging for esophageal cancer. Am J Surg. 2001;182:702-706.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 16]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Giovannini M, Monges G, Seitz JF, Moutardier V, Bernardini D, Thomas P, Houvenaeghel G, Delpero JR, Giudicelli R, Fuentes P. Distant lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer: impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy. Endoscopy. 1999;31:536-540.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 98]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 103]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Pfau PR, Ginsberg GG, Lew RJ, Faigel DO, Smith DB, Kochman ML. Esophageal dilation for endosonographic evaluation of malignant esophageal strictures is safe and effective. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2813-2815.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 90]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 94]  [Article Influence: 3.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Slater MS, Holland J, Faigel DO, Sheppard BC, Deveney CW. Does neoadjuvant chemoradiation downstage esophageal carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2001;181:440-444.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 36]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37]  [Article Influence: 1.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Greenberg J, Durkin M, Van Drunen M, Aranha GV. Computed tomography or endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative staging of gastric and esophageal tumors. Surgery. 1994;116:696-701; discussion 701-702.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
26.  Nishimaki T, Tanaka O, Ando N, Ide H, Watanabe H, Shinoda M, Takiyama W, Yamana H, Ishida K, Isono K. Evaluation of the accuracy of preoperative staging in thoracic esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:2059-2064.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 60]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 61]  [Article Influence: 2.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  McLoughlin RF, Cooperberg PL, Mathieson JR, Stordy SN, Halparin LS. High resolution endoluminal ultrasonography in the staging of esophageal carcinoma. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:725-730.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
28.  Wu LF, Wang BZ, Wang YZ, Xu XH, Zheng ZC. Evaluation of Miniprobe Endosonography in Preoperative TN staging of Esophageal Cancer: Comparison of water rinsing method with balloon method. J CAUME. 1999;5:10-13.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
29.  Wang Y, Sun Y, Li Y, Liu Y. [Clinical application of transesophageal intraluminal ultrasonography to the esophageal carcinoma]. Zhonghua Waike Zazhi. 1998;36:620-623, 122.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
30.  Kelly S, Harris KM, Berry E, Hutton J, Roderick P, Cullingworth J, Gathercole L, Smith MA. A systematic review of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal carcinoma. Gut. 2001;49:534-539.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 257]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 284]  [Article Influence: 12.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Sobin LH, Wittekind C, editors . TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th editor New York: Springer-Verlag 1997. .  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
32.  Botet JF, Lightdale CJ, Zauber AG, Gerdes H, Urmacher C, Brennan MF. Preoperative staging of esophageal cancer: comparison of endoscopic US and dynamic CT. Radiology. 1991;181:419-425.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 273]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 270]  [Article Influence: 8.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Tio TL, Cohen P, Coene PP, Udding J, den Hartog Jager FC, Tytgat GN. Endosonography and computed tomography of esophageal carcinoma. Preoperative classification compared to the new (1987) TNM system. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:1478-1486.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
34.  Rice TW, Zuccaro G, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH, Goldblum JR. Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:787-792.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 277]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 294]  [Article Influence: 11.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Hasegawa N, Niwa Y, Arisawa T, Hase S, Goto H, Hayakawa T. Preoperative staging of superficial esophageal carcinoma: comparison of an ultrasound probe and standard endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:388-393.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 121]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123]  [Article Influence: 4.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema MJ. High-frequency US catheter-based staging of early esophageal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:95-99.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30]  [Article Influence: 1.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
37.  Vickers J. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the preoperative assessment of patients with oesophageal cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1998;80:233-239.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
38.  Peters JH, Hoeft SF, Heimbucher J, Bremner RM, DeMeester TR, Bremner CG, Clark GW, Kiyabu M, Parisky Y. Selection of patients for curative or palliative resection of esophageal cancer based on preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography. Arch Surg. 1994;129:534-539.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 52]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
39.  Fockens P, Van den Brande JH, van Dullemen HM, van Lanschot JJ, Tytgat GN. Endosonographic T-staging of esophageal carcinoma: A learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:58-62.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 79]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 78]  [Article Influence: 2.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
40.  Nesje LB, Svanes K, Viste A, Laerum OD, Odegaard S. Comparison of a linear miniature ultrasound probe and a radial-scanning echoendoscope in TN staging of esophageal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000;35:997-1002.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 26]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28]  [Article Influence: 1.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
41.  Vickers J, Alderson D. Influence of luminal obstruction on oesophageal cancer staging using endoscopic ultrasonography. Br J Surg. 1998;85:999-1001.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 24]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24]  [Article Influence: 0.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
42.  Menzel J, Hoepffner N, Nottberg H, Schulz C, Senninger N, Domschke W. Preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma: miniprobe sonography versus conventional endoscopic ultrasound in a prospective histopathologically verified study. Endoscopy. 1999;31:291-297.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 65]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 68]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
43.  Akahoshi K, Chijiiwa Y, Sasaki I, Hamada S, Iwakiri Y, Nawata H, Kabemura T. Pre-operative TN staging of gastric cancer using a 15 MHz ultrasound miniprobe. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:703-707.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 31]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32]  [Article Influence: 1.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
44.  Richards DG, Brown TH, Manson JM. Endoscopic ultrasound in the staging of tumours of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82:311-317.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
45.  Hordijk ML, Zander H, van Blankenstein M, Tilanus HW. Influence of tumor stenosis on the accuracy of endosonography in preoperative T staging of esophageal cancer. Endoscopy. 1993;25:171-175.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 57]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
46.  Ampil FL, Caldito G, Li BD, Pelser R. Computed tomographic staging of esophageal cancer and prognosis. Radiat Med. 2001;19:127-129.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
47.  Luketich JD, Meehan M, Nguyen NT, Christie N, Weigel T, Yousem S, Keenan RJ, Schauer PR. Minimally invasive surgical staging for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:700-702.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 42]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
48.  Rösch T, Lorenz R, Zenker K, von Wichert A, Dancygier H, Höfler H, Siewert JR, Classen M. Local staging and assessment of resectability in carcinoma of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:460-467.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 152]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 144]  [Article Influence: 4.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
49.  Irie H, Honda H, Kaneko K, Kuroiwa T, Yoshimitsu K, Masuda K. Comparison of helical CT and MR imaging in detecting and staging small pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abdom Imaging. 1997;22:429-433.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 74]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 61]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
50.  Drudi FM, Trippa F, Cascone F, Righi A, Iascone C, Ricci P, David V, Passariello R. Esophagogram and CT versus endoscopic and surgical specimens in the diagnosis of esophageal carcinoma. Radiol Med. 2002;103:344-352.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
51.  Willis J, Cooper GS, Isenberg G, Sivak MV, Levitan N, Clayman J, Chak A. Correlation of EUS measurement with pathologic assessment of neoadjuvant therapy response in esophageal carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:655-661.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 72]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 72]  [Article Influence: 3.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
52.  Quint LE, Glazer GM, Orringer MB. Esophageal imaging by MR and CT: study of normal anatomy and neoplasms. Radiology. 1985;156:727-731.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 96]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 95]  [Article Influence: 2.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
53.  Chandawarkar RY, Kakegawa T, Fujita H, Yamana H, Hayabuthi N. Comparative analysis of imaging modalities in the preoperative assessment of nodal metastasis in esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 1996;61:214-217.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
54.  Massari M, Cioffi U, De Simone M, Lattuada E, Montorsi M, Segalin A, Bonavina L. Endoscopic ultrasonography for preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1997;7:162-165.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 1.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
55.  Fang W, Tao J, Chen W, Ling M, Zhou Y. [Preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma: comparison of endoesophageal ultrasonography, computerized tomography and conventional clinical staging]. Zhonghua Waike Zazhi. 1998;36:617-619, 122.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
56.  Yanai H, Yoshida T, Harada T, Matsumoto Y, Nishiaki M, Shigemitsu T, Tada M, Okita K, Kawano T, Nagasaki S. Endoscopic ultrasonography of superficial esophageal cancers using a thin ultrasound probe system equipped with switchable radial and linear scanning modes. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:578-582.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 57]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58]  [Article Influence: 2.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
57.  Murata Y, Suzuki S, Ohta M, Mitsunaga A, Hayashi K, Yoshida K, Ide H. Small ultrasonic probes for determination of the depth of superficial esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:23-28.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 117]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 117]  [Article Influence: 4.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
58.  Heidemann J, Schilling MK, Schmassmann A, Maurer CA, Büchler MW. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma. Dig Surg. 2000;17:219-224.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 45]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
59.  Wallace MB, Hawes RH, Sahai AV, Van Velse A, Hoffman BJ. Dilation of malignant esophageal stenosis to allow EUS guided fine-needle aspiration: safety and effect on patient management. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:309-313.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 101]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 106]  [Article Influence: 4.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
60.  Kim LS, Koch J. Do we practice what we preach clinical decision making and utilization of endoscopic ultrasound for staging esophageal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1847-1852.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 14]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
61.  Rösch T, Dittler HJ, Strobel K, Meining A, Schusdziarra V, Lorenz R, Allescher HD, Kassem AM, Gerhardt P, Siewert JR. Endoscopic ultrasound criteria for vascular invasion in the staging of cancer of the head of the pancreas: A blind reevaluation of videotapes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:469-477.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 98]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 108]  [Article Influence: 4.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
62.  Faige DO. EUS in patients with benign and malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:593-598.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 56]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 64]  [Article Influence: 2.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
63.  Reed CE, Mishra G, Sahai AV, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH. Esophageal cancer staging: improved accuracy by endoscopic ultrasound of celiac lymph nodes. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:319-321; discussion 322.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 117]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 120]  [Article Influence: 4.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
64.  Zuccaro G, Rice TW, Goldblum J, Medendorp SV, Becker M, Pimentel R, Gitlin L, Adelstein DJ. Endoscopic ultrasound cannot determine suitability for esophagectomy after aggressive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:906-912.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 140]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 144]  [Article Influence: 5.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
65.  Hölscher AH, Dittler HJ, Siewert JR. Staging of squamous esophageal cancer: Accuracy and value. World J Surg. 1994;18:312-320.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 56]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
66.  Kallimanis GE, Gupta PK, al-Kawas FH, Tio LT, Benjamin SB, Bertagnolli ME, Nguyen CC, Gomes MN, Fleischer DE. Endoscopic ultrasound for staging esophageal cancer, with or without dilation, is clinically important and safe. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;41:540-546.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 75]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 77]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
67.  Brugge WR, Lee MJ, Carey RW, Mathisen DJ. Endoscopic ultrasound staging criteria for esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:147-152.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 27]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
68.  Van Dam J, Rice TW, Catalano MF, Kirby T, Sivak MV. High-grade malignant stricture is predictive of esophageal tumor stage. Risks of endosonographic evaluation. Cancer. 1993;71:2910-2917.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
69.  Meining A, Dittler HJ, Wolf A, Lorenz R, Schusdziarra V, Siewert JR, Classen M, Höfler H, Rösch T. You get what you expect A critical appraisal of imaging methodology in endosonographic cancer staging. Gut. 2002;50:599-603.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 86]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 95]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
70.  Rice TW, Zuccaro G, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH, Goldblum JR. Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:787-792.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 277]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 294]  [Article Influence: 11.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
71.  Bhutani MS, Barde CJ, Markert RJ, Gopalswamy N. Length of esophageal cancer and degree of luminal stenosis during upper endoscopy predict T stage by endoscopic ultrasound. Endoscopy. 2002;34:461-463.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 37]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 40]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
72.  Parmar KS, Zwischenberger JB, Reeves AL, Waxman I. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of celiac axis lymph nodes (M1a disease) in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:916-920; discussion 920-921.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 58]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 60]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
73.  Zheng WW, Zhou KR, Chen ZW, Shen JZ, Chen CZ, Zhang SJ. Characterization of focal hepatic lesions with SPIO-enhanced MRI. World J Gastroenterol. 2002;8:82-86.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
74.  Wang YH, Zhang LZ, Wang GH. Clinical value of preoperative CT examination in esophageal cancer. Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi. 1998;6:461.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
75.  Loren DE, Seghal CM, Ginsberg GG, Kochman ML. Computer-assisted analysis of lymph nodes detected by EUS in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:742-746.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 15]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]