Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS for vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review

2007; Elsevier BV; Volume: 65; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.gie.2006.08.028

1097-6779

Srinivas R. Puli, Shailender Singh, Curt H. Hagedorn, Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy, Mojtaba Olyaee,

Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes

Background Vascular invasion (VI) in a patient with pancreatic or periampullary cancers precludes surgery and indicates a poor prognosis. Published data on the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI is varied. Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers. Design Data from EUS studies were pooled according to the Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian Laird methods. Patients EUS studies in which VI was confirmed by surgery or angiography were selected. Interventions EUS. Main Outcome Measures Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of EUS. Results Data were extracted from 29 studies (N = 1308) that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of EUS in diagnosing VI was 73% (95% CI, 68.8-76.9) and the pooled specificity was 90.2% (95% CI, 87.9-92.2). The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing VI by EUS was 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6-17.9) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5). Diagnostic odds ratio, the odds of having VI in positive as compared with negative EUS studies, was 40.1 (95% CI, 16.1-99.9). The P value for χ2 heterogeneity for all the pooled estimates was >.05. Conclusions Although EUS is the best noninvasive test to diagnose VI in pancreatic and periampullary cancers, this meta-analysis showed that the specificity (90%) is high but the sensitivity (73%) is not as high as suggested. Further refinements in EUS technologies and interpretation may improve the sensitivity for detecting VI. Vascular invasion (VI) in a patient with pancreatic or periampullary cancers precludes surgery and indicates a poor prognosis. Published data on the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI is varied. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers. Data from EUS studies were pooled according to the Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian Laird methods. EUS studies in which VI was confirmed by surgery or angiography were selected. EUS. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of EUS. Data were extracted from 29 studies (N = 1308) that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of EUS in diagnosing VI was 73% (95% CI, 68.8-76.9) and the pooled specificity was 90.2% (95% CI, 87.9-92.2). The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing VI by EUS was 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6-17.9) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5). Diagnostic odds ratio, the odds of having VI in positive as compared with negative EUS studies, was 40.1 (95% CI, 16.1-99.9). The P value for χ2 heterogeneity for all the pooled estimates was >.05. Although EUS is the best noninvasive test to diagnose VI in pancreatic and periampullary cancers, this meta-analysis showed that the specificity (90%) is high but the sensitivity (73%) is not as high as suggested. Further refinements in EUS technologies and interpretation may improve the sensitivity for detecting VI.