Literature DB >> 17350008

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS for vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Srinivas R Puli1, Shailender Singh, Curt H Hagedorn, Jyotsna Reddy, Mojtaba Olyaee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vascular invasion (VI) in a patient with pancreatic or periampullary cancers precludes surgery and indicates a poor prognosis. Published data on the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI is varied.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers.
DESIGN: Data from EUS studies were pooled according to the Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian Laird methods. PATIENTS: EUS studies in which VI was confirmed by surgery or angiography were selected.
INTERVENTIONS: EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of EUS.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 29 studies (N = 1308) that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of EUS in diagnosing VI was 73% (95% CI, 68.8-76.9) and the pooled specificity was 90.2% (95% CI, 87.9-92.2). The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing VI by EUS was 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6-17.9) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5). Diagnostic odds ratio, the odds of having VI in positive as compared with negative EUS studies, was 40.1 (95% CI, 16.1-99.9). The P value for chi(2) heterogeneity for all the pooled estimates was >.05.
CONCLUSIONS: Although EUS is the best noninvasive test to diagnose VI in pancreatic and periampullary cancers, this meta-analysis showed that the specificity (90%) is high but the sensitivity (73%) is not as high as suggested. Further refinements in EUS technologies and interpretation may improve the sensitivity for detecting VI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17350008     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.08.028

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Dimitrios Kypraios; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Giancarlo Caletti
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Tokar; Rohit Walia
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2013-10

Review 3.  Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of distal and celiac axis lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas R Puli; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Matthew L Bechtold; Mainor R Antillon; Jamal A Ibdah
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas-R Puli; Jyotsna-Bk Reddy; Matthew-L Bechtold; Daphne Antillon; Jamal-A Ibdah; Mainor-R Antillon
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  How good is endoscopic ultrasound for TNM staging of gastric cancers? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas-Reddy Puli; Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy; Matthew L Bechtold; Mainor R Antillon; Jamal A Ibdah
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Computed tomography-based diagnostics might be insufficient in the determination of pancreatic cancer unresectability.

Authors:  Vyacheslav I Egorov; Roman V Petrov; Elena N Solodinina; Gregory G Karmazanovsky; Natalia S Starostina; Natalia A Kuruschkina
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-04-27

Review 7.  Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas-R Puli; Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy; Matthew-L Bechtold; Jamal-A Ibdah; Daphne Antillon; Shailender Singh; Mojtaba Olyaee; Mainor-R Antillon
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Quality indicators for EUS.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 9.  How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound.

Authors:  Antonio Facciorusso; Rosario Vincenzo Buccino; Nicola Muscatiello
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-07

Review 10.  Can endoscopic ultrasound predict early rectal cancers that can be resected endoscopically? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas R Puli; Matthew L Bechtold; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Abhishek Choudhary; Mainor R Antillon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.