Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incremental value of endoscopic brush cytology in response assessment after chemo-irradiation for Esophageal cancer

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Response assessment after chemo-radiotherapy (CTRT) in locally advanced esophageal cancer is usually performed using a PET-CT scan, an upper GI endoscopy (UGIE) and histological correlation with biopsy or cytology. We aim to study the incremental value of brush cytology in addition to PET-CT for response assessment.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective analysis, 40 patients with Stage II- IV carcinoma esophagus treated with radical intent between June 2015 and August 2019 were included. Patients were treated with either upfront concurrent CTRT or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by CTRT. All patients underwent PET-CT and UGIE for initial staging and response assessment on follow-up. Patients with esophageal stricture (disease related or treatment induced) had brush cytology done during UGIE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of brush cytology were calculated considering serial clinical follow-up as gold standard.

Results

Twenty-three male (57.5%) and 17 (42.5%) female patients with median age of 57 years (range: 27 – 79 years) were analyzed. Concurrent CTRT was delivered in 52.5%; 75% patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); median RT dose was 63 Gy (range- 41.4 to 64 Gy). At a median follow-up of 16 months (range 6- 54 months), 20 patients (55.5%) were clinically controlled, 9 (25%) had local recurrence, 5 (13.8%) had loco-regional recurrence and 2 had distant metastasis. Considering clinical follow-up as the gold standard, sensitivity, PPV and NPV of PET-CT combined with brush cytology improved compared to PET-CT alone and was found to be 75%, 90%, 85.7% and 81.8% respectively.

Conclusion

We found that brush cytology on endoscopy is a simple tool with high specificity which adds value to the findings of response assessment PET-CT scan and thereby can increase the confidence of the treating oncologist in making clinical decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Yes, on request.

References

  1. Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, Macdonald JS, Martenson JAJ, Al-Sarraf M, et al. Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85–01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group JAMA. 1999;281(17):1623–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu AJ, Goodman KA. Clinical tools to predict outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation: Are we there yet? J GastrointestOncol. 2015;6(1):53–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, Correa AM, Ajani JA, Bresalier R, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann ThoracSurg. 2004;78(4):1152–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruzzi JF, Munden RF, Truong MT, Marom EM, Sabloff BS, Gladish GW, et al. PET/CT of Esophageal Cancer: Its Role in Clinical Management. RadioGraphics. 2007;27(6):1635–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jayachandran P, Pai RK, Quon A, Graves E, Krakow TE, La T, et al. Postchemoradiotherapy positron emission tomography predicts pathologic response and survival in patients with esophageal cancer. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 2012;84(2):471–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, Cambier JP, Haustermans K, Bormans G, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(3):361–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Roedl JB, Harisinghani MG, Colen RR, Fischman AJ, Blake MA, Mathisen DJ, et al. Assessment of treatment response and recurrence in esophageal carcinoma based on tumor length and standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Ann ThoracSurg. 2008;86(4):1131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Journo X-B, Michelet P, Dahan L, Doddoli C, Seitz J-F, Giudicelli R, et al. Indications and outcome of salvage surgery for oesophageal cancer. Eur J CardiothoracSurg. 2008;33(6):1117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaur S, Sharma R, Kaushal V, Gulati A, Sharma B. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic brush cytology in malignancies of upper gastrointestinal tract: A prospective study of 251 patients in North India. J Cancer Res Ther. 2016;12(2):681–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bakheet SM, Saleem M, Powe J, Al-Amro A, Larsson SG, Mahassin Z. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose chest uptake in lung inflammation and infection. ClinNucl Med. 2000;25(4):273–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhargava P, Reich P, Alavi A, Zhuang H. Radiation-Induced Esophagitis on FDG PET Imaging: Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2003;28(10):849–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Swisher SG, Marks J, Rice D. Salvage esophagectomy for persistent or recurrent disease after definitive chemoradiation. Ann CardiothoracSurg. 2017;6(2):144–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiyozumi Y, Yoshida N, Ishimoto T, Yagi T, Koga Y, Uchihara T, et al. Prognostic Factors of Salvage Esophagectomy for Residual or Recurrent Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Definitive Chemoradiotherapy. World J Surg. 2018;42(9):2887–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peng HQ, Halsey K, Sun CCJ, Manucha V, Nugent S, Rodgers WH, et al. Clinical utility of postchemoradiation endoscopic brush cytology and biopsy in predicting residual esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117(6):463–72.

    Google Scholar 

  15. O’Donoghue JM, Horgan PG, O’Donohoe MK, Byrne J, O’Hanlon DM, McGuire M, et al. Adjunctive endoscopic brush cytology in the detection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. ActaCytol. 1995;39(1):28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cook IJ, de Carle DJ, Haneman B, Hunt DR, Talley NA, Miller D. The role of brushing cytology in the diagnosis of gastric malignancy. ActaCytol. 1988;32(4):461–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vidyavathi K, Harendrakumar M, Lakshmana KY. Correlation of endoscopic brush cytology with biopsy in diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. Indian J PatholMicrobiol. 2008;51(4):489–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Geramizadeh B, Shafiee A, Saberfirruzi M, Kumar PK, Shaheem A. Brush cytology of gastric malignancies. ActaCytol. 2002;46(4):693–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hamadi SS. Endoscopic biopsy and brushing cytology compared to open tissue biopsy , a study of 50 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancy. 2019;(September).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Shreyasee Karmakar, Naveen Mummudi, Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar & Anil Tibdewal

  2. Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Rajiv Kumar

  3. Department of Gastr-Enterology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Prachi Patil & Shaesta Mehta

  4. Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Vanita Noronha & Kumar Prabhash

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Nilendu Purandare & Jai Prakash Agarwal

  6. Department of Cytopathology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

    Saleem Pathuthara

Authors
  1. Shreyasee Karmakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naveen Mummudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anil Tibdewal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rajiv Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Prachi Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shaesta Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vanita Noronha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kumar Prabhash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nilendu Purandare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Saleem Pathuthara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jai Prakash Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naveen Mummudi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethics approval

Approved by institutional IRB.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karmakar, S., Mummudi, N., Ghosh-Laskar, S. et al. Incremental value of endoscopic brush cytology in response assessment after chemo-irradiation for Esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Canc 53, 122–129 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-020-00555-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-020-00555-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation