How good is endoscopic ultrasound for TNM staging of gastric cancers? A meta-analysis and systematic review

被引:105
作者
Puli, Srinivas Reddy [1 ]
Reddy, Jyotsna Batapati Krishna [1 ]
Bechtold, Matthew L. [1 ]
Antillon, Mainor R. [1 ]
Ibdah, Jamal A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Missouri, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Columbia, MO 65212 USA
关键词
gastric cancer; staging; meta-analysis; endoscopic ultrasound;
D O I
10.3748/wjg.14.4011
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging of gastric cancers. METHODS: Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Only studies from which a 2 x 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, Ovid journals, Cumulative index for nursing & allied health literature, International pharmaceutical abstracts, old Medline, Medline nonindexed citations, and Cochrane control trial registry. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. 2 x 2 tables were constructed with the data extracted from each study. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS: Initial search identified 1620 reference articles and of these, 376 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Twenty-two studies (n = 1896) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity of T1 was 88.1% (95% CI: 84.5-91.1) and T2 was 82.3% (95% CI: 78.2-86.0). For T3, pooled sensitivity was 89.7% (95% CI: 87.1-92.0). T4 had a pooled sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI: 97.1-99.9). For nodal staging, the pooled sensitivity for NI was 58.2% (95% CI: 53.5-62.8) and N2 was 64.9% (95% CI: 60.8-68.8). Pooled sensitivity to diagnose distant metastasis was 73.2% (95% CI: 63.2-81.7). The P for chi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10. CONCLUSION: EUS results are more accurate with advanced disease than early disease. If EUS diagnoses advanced disease, such as T4 disease, the patient is 500 times more likely to have true anatomic stage of T4 disease. (C) 2008 The WJG Press. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:4011 / 4019
页数:9
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [1] Agresti A., 1984, Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data
  • [2] Efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection: a study of 101 cases
    Ahmad, NA
    Kochman, ML
    Long, WB
    Furth, EE
    Ginsberg, GG
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 55 (03) : 390 - 396
  • [3] PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION OF GASTRIC-CANCER BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND
    AKAHOSHI, K
    MISAWA, T
    FUJISHIMA, H
    CHIJIIWA, Y
    MARUOKA, A
    OHKUBO, A
    NAWATA, H
    [J]. GUT, 1991, 32 (05) : 479 - 482
  • [4] [Anonymous], SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH
  • [5] [Anonymous], 1989, Analysis of binary data
  • [6] OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS
    BEGG, CB
    MAZUMDAR, M
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1994, 50 (04) : 1088 - 1101
  • [7] EARLY GASTRIC-CANCER IN ITALY - CLINICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON 80 CASES
    BIASCO, G
    PAGANELLI, GM
    AZZARONI, D
    GRIGIONI, WF
    MERIGHI, SM
    STOJA, R
    VILLANACCI, V
    RUSTICALI, AG
    LOCUOCO, D
    CAPORALE, V
    BARBARA, L
    [J]. DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 1987, 32 (02) : 113 - 120
  • [8] Bossuyt PM, 2003, CROAT MED J, V44, P635
  • [9] PREOPERATIVE STAGING OF GASTRIC-CANCER - COMPARISON OF ENDOSCOPIC US AND DYNAMIC CT
    BOTET, JF
    LIGHTDALE, CJ
    ZAUBER, AG
    GERDES, H
    WINAWER, SJ
    URMACHER, C
    BRENNAN, MF
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1991, 181 (02) : 426 - 432
  • [10] PREOPERATIVE STAGING OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER - COMPARISON OF ENDOSCOPIC US AND DYNAMIC CT
    BOTET, JF
    LIGHTDALE, CJ
    ZAUBER, AG
    GERDES, H
    URMACHER, C
    BRENNAN, MF
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1991, 181 (02) : 419 - 425