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

作     者：Srinivas Reddy Puli Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy Matthew L Bechtold Mainor R Antillon Jamal A Ibdah 

作者机构：Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University of Missouri-Columbia 

出 版 物：《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 (世界胃肠病学杂志（英文版）)

年 卷 期：2008年第14卷第25期

页      面：4011-4019页

核心收录：

学科分类：1002[医学-临床医学] 100214[医学-肿瘤学] 10[医学] 

主　　题：胃癌 内窥镜 超声检查 治疗方法 

摘      要：AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging of gastric cancers. METHODS: Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Only studies from which a 2 × 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 & 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 × 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, specifi city, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fi xed 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. RESULTS: 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 hada 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. CONCLUSION: 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 h