Luca Elli1, Giovanni Casazza2, Martina Locatelli3, Federica Branchi3, Francesca Ferretti3, Dario Conte4, Mirella Fraquelli5. 1. Center for the Prevention and Diagnosis of Celiac Disease, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 2. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche "L. Sacco", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3. Center for the Prevention and Diagnosis of Celiac Disease, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 5. Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Enteroscopy (wireless or wired) is the reference standard for small-bowel (SB) diseases, and it has been applied to detect SB malignancies in complicated celiac disease (CD) with heterogeneous results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to obtain a diagnostic yield (DY) by pooling the data of studies that investigated the use of enteroscopy to detect SB adverse events in CD. METHODS: We performed an online search for studies estimating the DY of wireless and wired enteroscopy in predicting the presence of SB premalignant and/or malignant lesions. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method was used to pool the arcsine-transformed proportions of patients with the events. Three meta-analyses were performed considering the following events: the presence of a malignancy, premalignant damage (ulcerative jejunoileitis [UJ]), or the presence of a malignancy or UJ. A subgroup analysis was performed after extracting (if possible) patients with refractory CD (RCD). RESULTS: Of the 529 titles initially resulting from the search, 10 studies on capsule enteroscopy (CE) and 3 on double-balloon or push enteroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 439 and 76 patients were enrolled in these studies using CE and enteroscopy, respectively. Twelve tumors and 47 UJs were found by CE versus 8 tumors and 13 UJs detected by wired enteroscopy. For malignancies the CE yield was 1.9% (95% CI, .5%-3.8%) and wired enteroscopy yield 8.7% (95% CI, 0%-21.2%); similarly, for UJ the DYs were 8.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-17.7%) and 16.7% (95% CI, 8.7%-26.3%); for either UJ or neoplasia the DYs were 13.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.5%) and 27.7% (95% CI, 14.8%-42.6%). For RCD the DYs of all enteroscopic techniques were 1.8% (95% CI, 0%-7.7%) for neoplasia, 22.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-39.7%) for UJ, and 27.5% (95% CI, 13.1%-44.2%) for either. CONCLUSIONS: Enteroscopy is a powerful and efficient diagnostic tool for the detection of SB malignancies in complicated CD.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Enteroscopy (wireless or wired) is the reference standard for small-bowel (SB) diseases, and it has been applied to detect SB malignancies in complicated celiac disease (CD) with heterogeneous results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to obtain a diagnostic yield (DY) by pooling the data of studies that investigated the use of enteroscopy to detect SB adverse events in CD. METHODS: We performed an online search for studies estimating the DY of wireless and wired enteroscopy in predicting the presence of SB premalignant and/or malignant lesions. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method was used to pool the arcsine-transformed proportions of patients with the events. Three meta-analyses were performed considering the following events: the presence of a malignancy, premalignant damage (ulcerative jejunoileitis [UJ]), or the presence of a malignancy or UJ. A subgroup analysis was performed after extracting (if possible) patients with refractory CD (RCD). RESULTS: Of the 529 titles initially resulting from the search, 10 studies on capsule enteroscopy (CE) and 3 on double-balloon or push enteroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 439 and 76 patients were enrolled in these studies using CE and enteroscopy, respectively. Twelve tumors and 47 UJs were found by CE versus 8 tumors and 13 UJs detected by wired enteroscopy. For malignancies the CE yield was 1.9% (95% CI, .5%-3.8%) and wired enteroscopy yield 8.7% (95% CI, 0%-21.2%); similarly, for UJ the DYs were 8.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-17.7%) and 16.7% (95% CI, 8.7%-26.3%); for either UJ or neoplasia the DYs were 13.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.5%) and 27.7% (95% CI, 14.8%-42.6%). For RCD the DYs of all enteroscopic techniques were 1.8% (95% CI, 0%-7.7%) for neoplasia, 22.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-39.7%) for UJ, and 27.5% (95% CI, 13.1%-44.2%) for either. CONCLUSIONS: Enteroscopy is a powerful and efficient diagnostic tool for the detection of SB malignancies in complicated CD.