Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound:A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the staging of esophageal cancer. METHODS: Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Articles were searched in Medline and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran’s Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies (n = 2558) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS to diagnose T1 was 81.6% (95% CI: 77.8-84.9) and 99.4% (95% CI: 99.0-99.7), respectively. To diagnose T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92.4% (95% CI: 89.2-95.0) and specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 96.6-98.0). With Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA), sensitivity of EUS to diagnose N stage improved from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 96.7% (95% CI: 92.4-98.9). The P value for the χ2 test of heterogeneity for all pooled estimates was > 0.10. CONCLUSION: EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity in accurately diagnosing the TN stage of esophageal cancer. EUS performs better with advanced (T4) than early (T1) disease. FNA substantially improves the sensitivity and specificity of EUS in evaluating N stage disease. EUS should be strongly considered for staging esophageal cancer.

Meta-analysis and systematic review of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection

AIM:To evaluate the proportion of successful complete cure en-bloc resections of large colorectal polyps achieved by endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR). METHODS:Studies using the EMR technique to resect large colorectal polyps were selected.Successful complete cure en-bloc resection was defined as one piece margin-free polyp resection.Articles were searched for in Medline,Pubmed,and the Cochrane Control Trial Registry,among other sources. RESULTS:An initial search identified 2620 reference articles,from which 429 relevant articles were selected and reviewed.Data was extracted from 25 studies(n =5221)which met the inclusion criteria.All the studies used snares to perform EMR.Pooled proportion of en-bloc resections using a random effect model was 62.85%(95%CI:51.50-73.52).The pooled proportion for complete cure en-bloc resections using a random effect model was 58.66%(95%CI:47.14-69.71).With higher patient load(>200 patients),this complete cure en-bloc resection rate improves from 44.19%(95%CI: 24.31-65.09)to 69.17%(95%CI:51.11-84.61). CONCLUSION:EMR is an effective technique for the resection of large colorectal polyps and offers an alternative to surgery.

Endoscopic ultrasound:It’s accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM:To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy. METHODS:Only EUS and EUS-FNA studies confirmed by surgery or with appropriate follow-up were selected. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane control trial registry. Only studies from which a 2 × 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Pooling was conducted by both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran’s Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS:Data was extracted from 76 studies (n = 9310) which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 studies used EUS alone and 32 studies used EUS-FNA. FNA improved the sensitivity of EUS from 84.7% (95% CI:82.9-86.4) to 88.0% (95% CI:85.8-90.0). With FNA, the specificity of EUS improved from 84.6% (95% CI:83.2-85.9) to 96.4% (95% CI:95.3-97.4). The P forchi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10. CONCLUSION:EUS is highly sensitive and specific for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and FNA substantially improves this. EUS with FNA should be the diagnostic test of choice for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.