Puli Srinivas-Reddy, Batapati Krishna Reddy Jyotsna, Bechtold Matthew L, Antillon Mainor R, Ibdah Jamal A
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri-Columbia, One Hospital Drive, M580a, Columbia, Missouri 65212, United States.
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jul 7;14(25):4011-9. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.4011.
To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging of gastric cancers.
Only 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.
Initial 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.
EUS 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.
评估内镜超声(EUS)对胃癌分期的准确性。
仅选择经手术证实的EUS研究。仅纳入能构建2×2表格以得出真阳性、假阴性、假阳性和真阴性值的研究。在Medline、Pubmed、Ovid期刊、护理及相关健康文献累积索引、国际药学文摘、旧版Medline、Medline未索引引文以及Cochrane对照试验注册库中检索文章。两名审阅者独立检索并提取数据。差异通过双方协商解决。根据从每项研究中提取的数据构建2×2表格。通过计算敏感性、特异性、似然比和诊断比值比的合并估计值来分析EUS准确性的Meta分析。合并采用Mantel-Haenszel法(固定效应模型)和DerSimonian Laird法(随机效应模型)。基于逆方差权重,使用Cochran's Q检验来检验研究的异质性。
初步检索识别出1620篇参考文献,其中376篇相关文章被选中并进行审阅。本分析纳入了22项符合纳入标准的研究(n = 1896)。T1期的合并敏感性为88.1%(95%CI:84.5 - 91.1),T2期为82.3%(95%CI:78.2 - 86.0)。对于T3期,合并敏感性为89.7%(95%CI:87.1 - 92.0)。T4期的合并敏感性为99.2%(95%CI:97.1 - 99.9)。对于淋巴结分期,N1期的合并敏感性为58.2%(95%CI:53.5 - 62.8),N2期为64.9%(95%CI:60.8 - 68.8)。诊断远处转移的合并敏感性为73.2%(95%CI:63.2 - 81.7)。所有合并准确性估计值的卡方异质性P值>0.10。
EUS对晚期疾病的结果比对早期疾病更准确。如果EUS诊断为晚期疾病,如T4期疾病,患者真正处于T4期解剖学分期的可能性要高出500倍。