Cargando…
Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis
Gastric cancer preoperative staging is of outmost importance to assure proper management of the disease. Providing a relevant clinical stage relies on different imaging methods such as computed tomography (CT) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis for gastric ca...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7829791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33467164 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010134 |
_version_ | 1783641250959720448 |
---|---|
author | Ungureanu, Bogdan Silviu Sacerdotianu, Victor Mihai Turcu-Stiolica, Adina Cazacu, Irina Mihaela Saftoiu, Adrian |
author_facet | Ungureanu, Bogdan Silviu Sacerdotianu, Victor Mihai Turcu-Stiolica, Adina Cazacu, Irina Mihaela Saftoiu, Adrian |
author_sort | Ungureanu, Bogdan Silviu |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gastric cancer preoperative staging is of outmost importance to assure proper management of the disease. Providing a relevant clinical stage relies on different imaging methods such as computed tomography (CT) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis for gastric cancer clinical stage diagnostic tests, thus comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS vs. multidetector CT (MDCT) and EUS vs. EUS + MDCT. We plotted study estimates of pooled sensitivity and specificity on forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic space to explore between-study variation in the performance of EUS, MDCT and EUS + MDCT for T1–T4, N0–N3, M0–M1 when data were available. Exploratory analyses were undertaken in RevMan 5. We included twelve studies with 2047 patients. Our results suggest that EUS was superior to MDCT in preoperative T1 and N staging. MDCT is more specific for the M stage but no significant difference in sensitivity was obtained. When comparing EUS vs. EUS + MDCT for T1 both sensitivity and specificity were not relevant. No significant differences were observed in T2–T4 stages. Even though EUS helped differentiate between the presence of invaded nodules, N stages should be carefully assessed by both methods since there is not sufficient data. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7829791 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78297912021-01-26 Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis Ungureanu, Bogdan Silviu Sacerdotianu, Victor Mihai Turcu-Stiolica, Adina Cazacu, Irina Mihaela Saftoiu, Adrian Diagnostics (Basel) Review Gastric cancer preoperative staging is of outmost importance to assure proper management of the disease. Providing a relevant clinical stage relies on different imaging methods such as computed tomography (CT) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis for gastric cancer clinical stage diagnostic tests, thus comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS vs. multidetector CT (MDCT) and EUS vs. EUS + MDCT. We plotted study estimates of pooled sensitivity and specificity on forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic space to explore between-study variation in the performance of EUS, MDCT and EUS + MDCT for T1–T4, N0–N3, M0–M1 when data were available. Exploratory analyses were undertaken in RevMan 5. We included twelve studies with 2047 patients. Our results suggest that EUS was superior to MDCT in preoperative T1 and N staging. MDCT is more specific for the M stage but no significant difference in sensitivity was obtained. When comparing EUS vs. EUS + MDCT for T1 both sensitivity and specificity were not relevant. No significant differences were observed in T2–T4 stages. Even though EUS helped differentiate between the presence of invaded nodules, N stages should be carefully assessed by both methods since there is not sufficient data. MDPI 2021-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7829791/ /pubmed/33467164 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010134 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Ungureanu, Bogdan Silviu Sacerdotianu, Victor Mihai Turcu-Stiolica, Adina Cazacu, Irina Mihaela Saftoiu, Adrian Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title | Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | endoscopic ultrasound vs. computed tomography for gastric cancer staging: a network meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7829791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33467164 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010134 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ungureanubogdansilviu endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT sacerdotianuvictormihai endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT turcustiolicaadina endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT cazacuirinamihaela endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT saftoiuadrian endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis |