Diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating mucosal versus submucosal invasion of superficial esophageal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nirav Thosani, Harvinder Singh, Asha Kapadia, Nobuo Ochi, Jeffrey H. Lee, Jaffer Ajani, Stephen G. Swisher, Wayne L. Hofstetter, Sushovan Guha, Manoop S. Bhutani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

191 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)242-253
Number of pages12
JournalGastrointestinal endoscopy
Volume75
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2012

Keywords

  • AUC
  • CI
  • DOR
  • EC
  • ESD
  • NLR
  • PLR
  • SCC
  • SEC
  • SROC
  • area under the curve
  • confidence interval
  • diagnostic odds ratio
  • endoscopic submucosal dissection
  • esophageal cancer
  • negative likelihood ratio
  • positive likelihood ratio
  • squamous cell carcinoma
  • summary receiver operating characteristic
  • superficial esophageal cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating mucosal versus submucosal invasion of superficial esophageal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this