Diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating mucosal versus submucosal invasion of superficial esophageal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 22115605
- DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.016
Diagnostic accuracy of EUS in differentiating mucosal versus submucosal invasion of superficial esophageal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Diagnosis of depth of invasion for patients with superficial esophageal cancer: differentiating upper submucosal versus middle or deep submucosal invasion is important for deciding treatment strategy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Nov;76(5):1073; author reply 1073-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.04.471. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012. PMID: 23078932 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Endoscopic and surgical resection of T1a/T1b esophageal neoplasms: a systematic review.World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Mar 7;19(9):1424-37. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i9.1424. World J Gastroenterol. 2013. PMID: 23539431 Free PMC article.
-
Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 17;4(4):CD010213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010213.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28415140 Free PMC article.
-
Transabdominal ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 15;8(8):CD012233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012233.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30109701 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow Band Imaging and Its Diagnostic Value for Invasion Depth Staging in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 20;2018:8591387. doi: 10.1155/2018/8591387. eCollection 2018. Biomed Res Int. 2018. PMID: 29888281 Free PMC article.
-
Endoscopic biopsy and EUS for the detection of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 May;83(5):866-79. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.026. Epub 2015 Nov 26. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016. PMID: 26632523
Cited by
-
State-of-the-art management of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2022 Nov 11;10:goac068. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goac068. eCollection 2022. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2022. PMID: 36381221 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Analysis of Predictors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Superficial Esophageal Carcinoma.Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:3797615. doi: 10.1155/2016/3797615. Epub 2016 Oct 5. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016. PMID: 27799939 Free PMC article.
-
Is endoscopic ultrasound examination necessary in the management of esophageal cancer?World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb 7;23(5):751-762. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i5.751. World J Gastroenterol. 2017. PMID: 28223720 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early esophageal squamous neoplasia.World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Sep 16;9(9):438-447. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i9.438. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017. PMID: 28979708 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Diagnostic classification of endosonography for differentiating colorectal ulcerative diseases: A new statistical method.World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec 14;23(46):8207-8216. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i46.8207. World J Gastroenterol. 2017. PMID: 29290657 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical