Search

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for gastric cancer restaging by meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic search of studies published on PubMed and Web of Science up to 30th August 2021. Assessing the risk of bias in the included studies was done with the QUADAS-2 tool. We used R and Review Manager 5.4.1 for calculations and statistical analysis. To evaluate the diagnostic value of EUS after NT for gastric cancer restaging, we performed a meta-analysis on six studies, with a total of 283 patients, including true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative results for T1-T4, N0. EUS as a diagnostic test for GC patients after chemotherapy has a relatively low DOR for the T2 (3.96) and T4 stages (4.79) and a relatively high partial AUC for the T2 (0.85) and T4 (0.71) stages. Our results reveal that the pooled sensitivity for T stages after chemotherapy is rather low (29–56%), except for the T3 stage (71%). A potential limitation of our study was the small number of included studies, but no significant heterogeneity was found between them. Our meta-analysis concludes that EUS is not recommended or is still under debate for GC restaging after NT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastric cancer preoperative staging is of outmost importance to assure proper management of the disease. Providing a relevant clinical stage relies on different imaging methods such as computed tomography (CT) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis for gastric cancer clinical stage diagnostic tests, thus comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS vs. multidetector CT (MDCT) and EUS vs. EUS + MDCT. We plotted study estimates of pooled sensitivity and specificity on forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic space to explore between-study variation in the performance of EUS, MDCT and EUS + MDCT for T1–T4, N0–N3, M0–M1 when data were available. Exploratory analyses were undertaken in RevMan 5. We included twelve studies with 2047 patients. Our results suggest that EUS was superior to MDCT in preoperative T1 and N staging. MDCT is more specific for the M stage but no significant difference in sensitivity was obtained. When comparing EUS vs. EUS + MDCT for T1 both sensitivity and specificity were not relevant. No significant differences were observed in T2–T4 stages. Even though EUS helped differentiate between the presence of invaded nodules, N stages should be carefully assessed by both methods since there is not sufficient data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]