Author
Listed:
- Lin-na Luo
- Long-jun He
- Xiao-yan Gao
- Xin-xin Huang
- Hong-bo Shan
- Guang-yu Luo
- Yin Li
- Shi-yong Lin
- Guo-bao Wang
- Rong Zhang
- Guo-liang Xu
- Jian-jun Li
Abstract
Background: Treatment options and prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) depend on the primary tumor depth (T-staging) and regional lymph node status (N-staging). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a useful staging tool, but studies regarding its benefits have been variable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS for detecting preoperative ESCC. Methods: We included in our meta-analysis studies involving EUS-based staging of preoperative ESCC compared with pathological staging. Using a random-effects model, we performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratio. In addition, we created a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results: Forty-four studies (n = 2880) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of T1 were 77% (95%CI: 73 to 80) and 95% (95%CI: 94 to 96). Among the T1 patients, EUS had a pooled sensitivity in differentiating T1a and T1b of 84% (95%CI: 80 to 88) and 83% (95%CI: 80 to 86), and a specificity of 91% (95%CI: 88 to 94) and 89% (95%CI: 86 to 92). To stage T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95%CI: 79 to 89) and a specificity of 96% (95%CI: 95 to 97). The overall accuracy of EUS for T-staging was 79% (95%CI: 77 to 80), and for N-staging, 71% (95%CI: 69 to 73). Conclusions: EUS has good diagnostic accuracy for staging ESCC, which has better performance in T1 sub-staging (T1a and T1b) and advanced disease (T4).
Suggested Citation
Lin-na Luo & Long-jun He & Xiao-yan Gao & Xin-xin Huang & Hong-bo Shan & Guang-yu Luo & Yin Li & Shi-yong Lin & Guo-bao Wang & Rong Zhang & Guo-liang Xu & Jian-jun Li, 2016.
"Endoscopic Ultrasound for Preoperative Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0158373
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158373
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.