• World J Gastroentero · Jul 2008

    Review Meta Analysis

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

    • Srinivas-Reddy Puli, Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy, Matthew L Bechtold, Mainor R Antillon, and Jamal A Ibdah.
    • Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri-Columbia, One Hospital Drive, M580a, Columbia, Missouri 65212, United States.
    • World J Gastroentero. 2008 Jul 7; 14 (25): 4011-9.

    AimTo evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging of gastric cancers.MethodsOnly 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 and 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.ResultsInitial 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 N1 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.ConclusionEUS 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.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.