Y Backes1, A Moss2,3, J B Reitsma4, P D Siersema1,5, L M G Moons1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Endoscopic Services, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Medicine, Melbourne Medical School-Western Precinct, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia. 4. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) and T1 CRC with deep submucosal invasion is important in guiding the treatment strategy. The use of advanced imaging is not standard clinical practice in Western countries. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted comparing the accuracy of narrow band imaging (NBI), magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE), and gross morphological features (GMF) seen with conventional view for the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep submucosal invasion. METHODS: A literature search identified studies on the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep invasion using NBI, MCE, or GMF. Pooled estimates (PE) of sensitivity and specificity across studies reporting on NBI or MCE were compared using a random effects bivariate meta-regression approach, and a paired analysis focusing on studies that performed both techniques within the same patient was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies with 31,568 polyps were included. For the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC, both NBI (4 studies; PE 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91) and MCE (5 studies; PE 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.94) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (3 studies; range 0.21-0.46). No significant preference for NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity relative risk (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09, P=0.37; specificity RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.11, P=0.74). Similarly, for the optical diagnosis of deep invasion, both NBI (13 studies; PE 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.84) and MCE (17 studies; PE 0.81, 95% 0.75-0.87) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (6 studies; range 0.18-0.88), and no significant preference for either NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11, P=0.36; specificity RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04, P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the use of advanced imaging techniques in preference to GMF to reduce the risk of performing piecemeal resection for T1 CRCs or unnecessary surgical referral for lesions amendable to endoscopic resection. A preference for either NBI or MCE could not be observed.
OBJECTIVES: Optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) and T1 CRC with deep submucosal invasion is important in guiding the treatment strategy. The use of advanced imaging is not standard clinical practice in Western countries. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted comparing the accuracy of narrow band imaging (NBI), magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE), and gross morphological features (GMF) seen with conventional view for the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep submucosal invasion. METHODS: A literature search identified studies on the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep invasion using NBI, MCE, or GMF. Pooled estimates (PE) of sensitivity and specificity across studies reporting on NBI or MCE were compared using a random effects bivariate meta-regression approach, and a paired analysis focusing on studies that performed both techniques within the same patient was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies with 31,568 polyps were included. For the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC, both NBI (4 studies; PE 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91) and MCE (5 studies; PE 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.94) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (3 studies; range 0.21-0.46). No significant preference for NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity relative risk (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09, P=0.37; specificity RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.11, P=0.74). Similarly, for the optical diagnosis of deep invasion, both NBI (13 studies; PE 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.84) and MCE (17 studies; PE 0.81, 95% 0.75-0.87) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (6 studies; range 0.18-0.88), and no significant preference for either NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11, P=0.36; specificity RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04, P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the use of advanced imaging techniques in preference to GMF to reduce the risk of performing piecemeal resection for T1 CRCs or unnecessary surgical referral for lesions amendable to endoscopic resection. A preference for either NBI or MCE could not be observed.
Authors: Alan Moss; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Robert Y Chen; Karen Byth Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Chan Hyuk Park; Dong-Hoon Yang; Jong Wook Kim; Jie-Hyun Kim; Ji Hyun Kim; Yang Won Min; Si Hyung Lee; Jung Ho Bae; Hyunsoo Chung; Kee Don Choi; Jun Chul Park; Hyuk Lee; Min-Seob Kwak; Bun Kim; Hyun Jung Lee; Hye Seung Lee; Miyoung Choi; Dong-Ah Park; Jong Yeul Lee; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Chan Guk Park; Joo Young Cho; Soo Teik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun Journal: Intest Res Date: 2020-10-13