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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/1/134 |
| _version_ | 1797410734891597824 |
|---|---|
| author | Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu Victor Mihai Sacerdotianu Adina Turcu-Stiolica Irina Mihaela Cazacu Adrian Saftoiu |
| author_facet | Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu Victor Mihai Sacerdotianu Adina Turcu-Stiolica Irina Mihaela Cazacu Adrian Saftoiu |
| author_sort | Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:33:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-06fe460434754bd4aca5197d1cc9d470 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:33:32Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj.art-06fe460434754bd4aca5197d1cc9d4702023-12-03T13:30:44ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182021-01-0111113410.3390/diagnostics11010134Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-AnalysisBogdan Silviu Ungureanu0Victor Mihai Sacerdotianu1Adina Turcu-Stiolica2Irina Mihaela Cazacu3Adrian Saftoiu4Gastroenterology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaGastroenterology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaPharmacoeconomics Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaOncology Department, Fundeni Clinical Hospital Bucharest, 022328 Bucharest, RomaniaGastroenterology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaGastric 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/1/134endoscopic ultrasoundcomputed tomographygastric cancer staging |
| spellingShingle | Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu Victor Mihai Sacerdotianu Adina Turcu-Stiolica Irina Mihaela Cazacu Adrian Saftoiu Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis Diagnostics endoscopic ultrasound computed tomography gastric cancer staging |
| 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 | endoscopic ultrasound computed tomography gastric cancer staging |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/1/134 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bogdansilviuungureanu endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT victormihaisacerdotianu endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT adinaturcustiolica endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT irinamihaelacazacu endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis AT adriansaftoiu endoscopicultrasoundvscomputedtomographyforgastriccancerstaginganetworkmetaanalysis |