TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating mucosal versus submucosal invasion of superficial esophageal cancers
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Thosani, Nirav
AU - Singh, Harvinder
AU - Kapadia, Asha
AU - Ochi, Nobuo
AU - Lee, Jeffrey H.
AU - Ajani, Jaffer
AU - Swisher, Stephen G.
AU - Hofstetter, Wayne L.
AU - Guha, Sushovan
AU - Bhutani, Manoop S.
PY - 2012/2
Y1 - 2012/2
N2 - Background: The prognosis of esophageal cancer (EC) depends on the depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis. EC limited to the mucosa (T1a) can be treated effectively with minimally invasive endoscopic therapy, whereas submucosal (T1b) EC carries relatively high risk of lymph node metastasis and requires surgical resection. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating T1a EC from T1b EC. Design: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and CINAHL Plus databases to identify studies in which results of EUS-based staging of EC were compared with the results of histopathology of EMR or surgically resected esophageal lesions. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio, and a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was created. Setting: Meta-analysis of 19 international studies. Patients: Total of 1019 patients with superficial EC (SEC). Interventions: EUS and EMR or surgical resection of SEC. Main Outcome Measurements: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS in accurately staging SEC. Results: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio of EUS for T1a staging were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90), 6.62 (95% CI, 3.61-12.12), and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.14-0.30), respectively. For T1b staging, these results were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 5.13 (95% CI, 3.36-7.82), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.09-0.30), respectively. The area under the curve was at least 0.93 for both mucosal and submucosal lesions. Limitations: Heterogeneity was present among the studies. Conclusion: Overall EUS has good accuracy (area under the curve <0.93) in staging SECs. Heterogeneity among the included studies suggests that multiple factors including the location and type of lesion, method and frequency of EUS probe, and the experience of the endosonographer can affect the diagnostic accuracy of EUS.
AB - Background: The prognosis of esophageal cancer (EC) depends on the depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis. EC limited to the mucosa (T1a) can be treated effectively with minimally invasive endoscopic therapy, whereas submucosal (T1b) EC carries relatively high risk of lymph node metastasis and requires surgical resection. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating T1a EC from T1b EC. Design: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and CINAHL Plus databases to identify studies in which results of EUS-based staging of EC were compared with the results of histopathology of EMR or surgically resected esophageal lesions. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio, and a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was created. Setting: Meta-analysis of 19 international studies. Patients: Total of 1019 patients with superficial EC (SEC). Interventions: EUS and EMR or surgical resection of SEC. Main Outcome Measurements: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS in accurately staging SEC. Results: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio of EUS for T1a staging were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90), 6.62 (95% CI, 3.61-12.12), and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.14-0.30), respectively. For T1b staging, these results were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 5.13 (95% CI, 3.36-7.82), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.09-0.30), respectively. The area under the curve was at least 0.93 for both mucosal and submucosal lesions. Limitations: Heterogeneity was present among the studies. Conclusion: Overall EUS has good accuracy (area under the curve <0.93) in staging SECs. Heterogeneity among the included studies suggests that multiple factors including the location and type of lesion, method and frequency of EUS probe, and the experience of the endosonographer can affect the diagnostic accuracy of EUS.
KW - AUC
KW - CI
KW - DOR
KW - EC
KW - ESD
KW - NLR
KW - PLR
KW - SCC
KW - SEC
KW - SROC
KW - area under the curve
KW - confidence interval
KW - diagnostic odds ratio
KW - endoscopic submucosal dissection
KW - esophageal cancer
KW - negative likelihood ratio
KW - positive likelihood ratio
KW - squamous cell carcinoma
KW - summary receiver operating characteristic
KW - superficial esophageal cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855836440&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855836440&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.016
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 22115605
AN - SCOPUS:84855836440
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 75
SP - 242
EP - 253
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 2
ER -