Search

Background: Diagnosis of cancer invasion depth is crucial for selecting the optimal treatment strategy in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the utilities of different endoscopic modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Ichushi databases to identify studies evaluating the use of endoscopic modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial esophageal SCC. We excluded case reports, review articles, and studies in which the total number of patients or lesions was <10. Results: Fourteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed that magnified endoscopy (ME) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) performed better than non-ME. ME was associated with high sensitivity and a very low (0.08) negative likelihood ratio (NLR), while EUS had high specificity and a very high (17.6) positive likelihood ratio (PLR) for the diagnosis of epithelial or lamina propria cancers. NLR <0.1 provided strong evidence to rule out disease, and PLR >10 provided strong evidence of a positive diagnosis. Conclusions: EUS and ME perform better than non-ME for diagnosing invasion depth in SCC. ME has a low NLR and is a reliable modality for confirming deep invasion of cancer, while EUS has a high PLR and can reliably confirm that the cancer is limited to the surface. Effective use of these two modalities should be considered in patients with SCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent technological advances have stimulated the development of endoscopic optical biopsy technologies. This study compared the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis using magnifying narrow-band imaging (NBI) and histologic diagnosis of esophageal squamous lesions. Methods: Patients at high risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were examined with endoscopy and subsequent biopsy. The lesions diagnosed as cancer on NBI and the lesions diagnosed as cancer on biopsy were resected endoscopically or surgically. Histological diagnoses of resected specimens, the reference standards in this study, were made by a pathologist who was blind to both the endoscopic and biopsy diagnoses. The primary outcome was the accuracy of endoscopic and biopsy diagnosis. A noninferiority trial design with a noninferiority margin of −10% was chosen to investigate the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis using magnifying NBI. Results: Between November 2010 and October 2012, a total of 111 lesions in 85 patients were included in the analysis. The accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis and biopsy diagnosis for all lesions was 91.0% (101/111) and 85.6% (95/111), respectively. The difference in diagnostic accuracy was 5.4% (95% confidence interval: −2.9%–13.7%). The accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis and biopsy diagnosis of invasive cancers was 94.9% (74/78) and 84.6% (66/78), respectively. The difference was 10.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.6%–19.0%) for invasive cancers. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was above the prestated −10% in both cases. Conclusion: Noninferiority of endoscopic diagnosis by magnifying NBI to histologic diagnosis by biopsy was established in this study (p = 0.0001). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]