FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1888386056> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1888386056 abstract "Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is proposed as an accurate diagnostic device for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which is crucial to developing a correct therapeutic strategy and ultimately to providing patients with the best chance of cure. However, despite a number of studies addressing this issue, there is no consensus on the role of EUS in routine clinical practice.To provide both a comprehensive overview and a quantitative analysis of the published data regarding the ability of EUS to preoperatively define the locoregional disease spread (i.e., primary tumor depth (T-stage) and regional lymph node status (N-stage)) in people with primary gastric carcinoma.We performed a systematic search to identify articles that examined the diagnostic accuracy of EUS (the index test) in the evaluation of primary gastric cancer depth of invasion (T-stage, according to the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system categories T1, T2, T3 and T4) and regional lymph node status (N-stage, disease-free (N0) versus metastatic (N+)) using histopathology as the reference standard. To this end, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Library (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, NIHR Prospero Register, MEDION, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), from 1988 to January 2015.We included studies that met the following main inclusion criteria: 1) a minimum sample size of 10 patients with histologically-proven primary carcinoma of the stomach (target condition); 2) comparison of EUS (index test) with pathology evaluation (reference standard) in terms of primary tumor (T-stage) and regional lymph nodes (N-stage). We excluded reports with possible overlap with the selected studies.For each study, two review authors extracted a standard set of data, using a dedicated data extraction form. We assessed data quality using a standard procedure according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. We performed diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis using the hierarchical bivariate method.We identified 66 articles (published between 1988 and 2012) that were eligible according to the inclusion criteria. We collected the data on 7747 patients with gastric cancer who were staged with EUS. Overall the quality of the included studies was good: in particular, only five studies presented a high risk of index test interpretation bias and two studies presented a high risk of selection bias.For primary tumor (T) stage, results were stratified according to the depth of invasion of the gastric wall. The meta-analysis of 50 studies (n = 4397) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity of EUS in discriminating T1 to T2 (superficial) versus T3 to T4 (advanced) gastric carcinomas were 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.90) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) respectively. For the diagnostic capacity of EUS to distinguish T1 (early gastric cancer, EGC) versus T2 (muscle-infiltrating) tumors, the meta-analysis of 46 studies (n = 2742) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93) respectively. When we addressed the capacity of EUS to distinguish between T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers the meta-analysis of 20 studies (n = 3321) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.84) respectively. Finally, for the metastatic involvement of lymph nodes (N-stage), the meta-analysis of 44 studies (n = 3573) showed that the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.87) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), respectively.Overall, as demonstrated also by the Bayesian nomograms, which enable readers to calculate post-test probabilities for any target condition prevalence, the EUS accuracy can be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric cancer. However, it should be noted that between-study heterogeneity was not negligible: unfortunately, we could not identify any consistent source of the observed heterogeneity. Therefore, all accuracy measures reported in the present work and summarizing the available evidence should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, we must emphasize that the analysis of positive and negative likelihood values revealed that EUS diagnostic performance cannot be considered optimal either for disease confirmation or for exclusion, especially for the ability of EUS to distinguish T1a (mucosal) versus T1b (submucosal) cancers and positive versus negative lymph node status.By analyzing the data from the largest series ever considered, we found that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS might be considered clinically useful to guide physicians in the locoregional staging of people with gastric carcinoma. However, the heterogeneity of the results warrants special caution, as well as further investigation for the identification of factors influencing the outcome of this diagnostic tool. Moreover, physicians should be warned that EUS performance is lower in diagnosing superficial tumors (T1a versus T1b) and lymph node status (positive versus negative). Overall, we observed large heterogeneity and its source needs to be understood before any definitive conclusion can be drawn about the use of EUS can be proposed in routine clinical settings." @default.
• W1888386056 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1888386056 creator A5009562018 @default.
• W1888386056 creator A5089343179 @default.
• W1888386056 date "2015-02-06" @default.
• W1888386056 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W1888386056 title "Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer" @default.
• W1888386056 cites W12636511 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W134115648 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1503961792 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1544525018 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W157779043 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W164201213 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1696543530 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1825969705 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1827283852 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1875373156 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1947668505 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1963785877 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1964521717 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1965204840 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1966881111 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1968516322 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1969103277 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1970287701 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1971389423 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1971995493 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1972640832 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1973593314 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1979430713 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1979538859 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1981989535 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1983377209 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1984243871 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1984254195 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1987603634 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1988426356 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W199051202 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1993402351 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1993702428 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1994171517 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1994293625 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1994868617 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1996406968 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1997313956 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1998310035 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W1998892773 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2000018143 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2001753191 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2002188196 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2002277826 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2002482203 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2003046299 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2003740803 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2007390373 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2007977208 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2010795267 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2011382784 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2013622081 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2014937849 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2015130855 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2016154746 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2019349718 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2019504299 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2019665548 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2020488794 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2025039457 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2025207220 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2028685780 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2030943783 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2032273311 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2032743505 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2033384263 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2035074078 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2037320229 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2037836063 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2038490201 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2040336929 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2040935952 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2041333915 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2041529460 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2043084506 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2045020263 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2046504354 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2048445108 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2049534741 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2050796738 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2051512951 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2051717627 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2051826408 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2053612952 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2053832776 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2054299192 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2056059296 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2056471171 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2057183367 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2057647034 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2060733739 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2062021450 @default.
• W1888386056 cites W2062596854 @default.

• next