S Schneeweiss1, M Kriegmair, H Stepp. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We demonstrate a simple yet comprehensive method to evaluate the sensitivity of endoscopic procedures when no gold standard is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 208 consecutive patients with superficial bladder cancer 328 endoscopies were performed to compare the sensitivity of white light and 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence endoscopy. Both procedures were performed during the same session. RESULTS: The maximum interval of observable sensitivity for 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence endoscopy ranged between 78 and 97.5%, and the best estimate for sensitivity based on realistic assumptions was 93.4% (95% confidence intervals 90 to 97.3). The best sensitivity estimate for white light endoscopy was 46.7% (95% confidence intervals 39.4 to 54.3, maximum range 47.2 to 53%). CONCLUSIONS: This method to determine the maximum possible range of sensitivity estimates for endoscopic procedures without a gold standard is easily applied. Depending on the assumptions a range of reasonable scenarios can be constructed and the corresponding sensitivities can be reported. This approach gives fast and valid results, and could further indicate the diagnostic superiority of 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence compared to white light endoscopy.
PURPOSE: We demonstrate a simple yet comprehensive method to evaluate the sensitivity of endoscopic procedures when no gold standard is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 208 consecutive patients with superficial bladder cancer 328 endoscopies were performed to compare the sensitivity of white light and 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence endoscopy. Both procedures were performed during the same session. RESULTS: The maximum interval of observable sensitivity for 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence endoscopy ranged between 78 and 97.5%, and the best estimate for sensitivity based on realistic assumptions was 93.4% (95% confidence intervals 90 to 97.3). The best sensitivity estimate for white light endoscopy was 46.7% (95% confidence intervals 39.4 to 54.3, maximum range 47.2 to 53%). CONCLUSIONS: This method to determine the maximum possible range of sensitivity estimates for endoscopic procedures without a gold standard is easily applied. Depending on the assumptions a range of reasonable scenarios can be constructed and the corresponding sensitivities can be reported. This approach gives fast and valid results, and could further indicate the diagnostic superiority of 5-aminolevulinic acid induced fluorescence compared to white light endoscopy.
Authors: Casey Seideman; Daniel Canter; Philip Kim; Billy Cordon; Alon Weizer; Irma Oliva; Jianyu Rao; Brant A Inman; Michael Posch; Harry Herr; Yair Lotan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Roger Li; Debasish Sundi; Jingsong Zhang; Youngchul Kim; Richard J Sylvester; Philippe E Spiess; Michael A Poch; Wade J Sexton; Peter C Black; James M McKiernan; Gary D Steinberg; Ashish M Kamat; Scott M Gilbert Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Khadjavi; F Mannu; P Destefanis; C Sacerdote; A Battaglia; M Allasia; D Fontana; B Frea; S Polidoro; G Fiorito; G Matullo; A Pantaleo; A Notarpietro; M Prato; F Castagno; P Vineis; P Gontero; G Giribaldi; F Turrini Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Virginia Urquidi; Mandy Netherton; Evan Gomes-Giacoia; Daniel Serie; Jeanette Eckel-Passow; Charles J Rosser; Steve Goodison Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-06-21
Authors: John D Kelly; Tim J Dudderidge; Alex Wollenschlaeger; Odu Okoturo; Keith Burling; Fiona Tulloch; Ian Halsall; Teresa Prevost; Andrew Toby Prevost; Joana C Vasconcelos; Wendy Robson; Hing Y Leung; Nikhil Vasdev; Robert S Pickard; Gareth H Williams; Kai Stoeber Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 3.240