How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis

Gastric Cancer - Tập 15 - Trang 3-18 - 2011
Rajini Seevaratnam1, Roberta Cardoso1, Caitlin Mcgregor2, Laercio Lourenco3, Alyson Mahar1,4, Rinku Sutradhar5,6, Calvin Law6,7, Lawrence Paszat6,8, Natalie Coburn1,6,7,8
1Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
2Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
3Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
4Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
5Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
6Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
7Division of Surgical Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
8Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Tóm tắt

Surgery is the fundamental curative option for gastric cancer patients. Imaging scans are routinely prescribed in an attempt to stage the disease prior to surgery. Consequently, the correlation between radiology exams and pathology is crucial for appropriate treatment planning. Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 1, 2009. We calculated the accuracy, overstaging rate, understaging rate, Kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity for abdominal ultrasound (AUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to the gold standard (pathology). We also compared the performance of CT by detector number and image type. A meta-analysis was performed. For pre-operative T staging MRI scans had better performance accuracy than CT and AUS; CT scanners using ≥4 detectors and multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images had higher staging performances than scanners with <4 detectors and axial images only. For pre-operative N staging PET had the lowest sensitivity, but the highest specificity among modalities; CT performance did not significantly differ by detector number or addition of MPR images. For pre-operative M staging performance did not significantly differ by modality, detector number, or MPR images. The agreement between pre-operative TNM staging by imaging scans and post-operative staging by pathology is not perfect and may affect treatment decisions. Operator dependence and heterogeneity of data may account for the variations in staging performance. Physicians should consider this discrepancy when creating their treatment plans.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Hartgrink HH, Jansen EP, van Grieken NC, van de Velde CJ. Gastric cancer. Lancet. 2009;374(9688):477–90.

Catalano V, Labianca R, Beretta GD, Gatta G, de Braud F, Van Cutsem E. Gastric cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;71(2):127–64.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network N. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology—Gastric Cancer—V.2.2010. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.; 2010.

UICC/AJCC. American Joint Committee on Cancer, Cancer Staging Manual. 1988–2002. http://www.cancerstaging.org/products/pasteditions.html.

Lee DH, Seo TS, Ko YT. Spiral CT of the gastric carcinoma: staging and enhancement pattern. Clin Imaging. 2001;25(1):32–7.

Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, Asao T, Oriuchi N, Endo K. Evaluation of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2004;28(3):247–53.

Yang DM, Kim HC, Jin W, Ryu CW, Kang JH, Park CH, et al. 64 multidetector-row computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer: histological correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(1):98–103.