Literature DB >> 12196772

Comparison of EUS and magnifying colonoscopy for assessment of small colorectal cancers.

Takayuki Matsumoto1, Kazuoki Hizawa, Motohiro Esaki, Koichi Kurahara, Mitsuru Mizuno, Katsuya Hirakawa, Takashi Yao, Mitsuo Iida.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prediction of invasion depth and lymph node metastasis is mandatory when local treatment is considered for small colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of EUS with a catheter probe (probe-EUS) and magnifying colonoscopy for prediction of invasion depth and lymph node metastasis for small colorectal cancer.
METHODS: Small colorectal cancers were imaged by both probe-EUS and magnifying colonoscopy. Invasion depth by probe-EUS was determined by the presence or absence of distortion of the third sonographic layer. Findings by magnifying colonoscopy were divided into regular, distorted, and amorphous patterns. Histopathologically, depth of invasion was classified as intramucosa/slight or deep invasion. Findings by probe-EUS and magnifying colonoscopy were compared with respect to deep invasion and lymph node metastasis.
RESULTS: There were 22 small colorectal cancers with intramucosa/slight invasion and 28 with deep invasion. Four of 30 cancers had associated lymph node metastasis. Accuracy for depth of invasion was 91.8% for probe-EUS and 63.3% in magnifying colonoscopy, the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.0013). Negative predictive value of probe-EUS for deep invasion was higher than that for magnifying colonoscopy (respectively, 90.9% vs. 54.1%) in the population studied (prevalence deep invasion 56%). The accuracy for lymph node metastasis was 24.1% for probe-EUS and 72.4% for magnifying colonoscopy, the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). Positive predictive value for lymph node metastasis was higher when the amorphous pattern was noted by magnifying colonoscopy compared with the positive predictive value for deep invasion by probe-EUS (respectively, 33.3% vs. 8.7%) in the population studied (prevalence lymph node metastasis 13.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Probe-EUS is superior to magnifying colonoscopy for determination of invasion depth in small colorectal cancer. Magnifying colonoscopy may be predictive of lymph node metastasis, thereby suggesting that the procedures provide complementary information with respect to the decision for local versus surgical therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12196772     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(02)70038-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  16 in total

1.  High magnification chromoscopic colonoscopy or high frequency 20 MHz mini probe endoscopic ultrasound staging for early colorectal neoplasia: a comparative prospective analysis.

Authors:  D P Hurlstone; S Brown; S S Cross; A J Shorthouse; D S Sanders
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-06-17       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 caused by early colon cancer treated with endoscopic mucosal resection.

Authors:  Hajime Aoyama; Yuji Tobaru; Ryosaku Tomiyama; Kiyoshi Maeda; Kazuto Kishimoto; Tetsuo Hirata; Akira Hokama; Fukunori Kinjo; Jiro Fujita
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Clinical significance of type V(I) pit pattern subclassification in determining the depth of invasion of colorectal neoplasms.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kanao; Shinji Tanaka; Shiro Oka; Iwao Kaneko; Shigeto Yoshida; Koji Arihiro; Masaharu Yoshihara; Kazuaki Chayama
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Estimation of invasion depth of early colorectal cancer using EUS and NBI-ME: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  G Chao; F Ye; T Li; W Gong; S Zhang
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 5.  Narrow Band Imaging, Magnifying Chromoendoscopy, and Gross Morphological Features for the Optical Diagnosis of T1 Colorectal Cancer and Deep Submucosal Invasion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Y Backes; A Moss; J B Reitsma; P D Siersema; L M G Moons
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnifying endoscopy for assessment of the invasion depth of shallow gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhang Tao; Chen Yan; He Zhao; Jiawei Tsauo; Xiaowu Zhang; Bing Qiu; Yanqing Zhao; Xiao Li
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  High-frequency ultrasound probe sonography staging for colorectal neoplasia with superficial morphology: its utility and impact on patient management.

Authors:  Ondrej Urban; Martin Kliment; Petr Fojtik; Premysl Falt; Julius Orhalmi; Petr Vitek; Pavol Holeczy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Technique of endoscopic biopsy of islet allografts transplanted into the gastric submucosal space in pigs.

Authors:  Minoru Fujita; Kevin M McGrath; Rita Bottino; Eefje M Dons; Cassandra Long; Goutham Kumar; Burcin Ekser; Gabriel J Echeverri; Jiro Hata; Ken Haruma; David K C Cooper; Hidetaka Hara
Journal:  Cell Transplant       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Endoscopic patterns of gastric mucosa and its clinicopathological significance.

Authors:  Jian-Min Yang; Lei Chen; Yu-Lin Fan; Xiang-Hong Li; Xin Yu; Dian-Chun Fang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Efficacy of a novel auto-fluorescence imaging system with computer-assisted color analysis for assessment of colorectal lesions.

Authors:  Hiroko Inomata; Naoto Tamai; Hiroyuki Aihara; Kazuki Sumiyama; Shoichi Saito; Tomohiro Kato; Hisao Tajiri
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.