Curr Health Sci J, vol. 48, no. 1, 2022
Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Gastric Cancer Staging
[Original Paper]
V.M. Sacerdotianu(1), B.S. Ungureanu(1), S. Iordache(1), M.M. Filip(1), D. Pirici(2), I.M. Liliac(2), A. Saftoiu(1)
(1)University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Craiova, Romania
(2)University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Department of Histology, Craiova, Romania
Abstract:
Gastric cancer remains a health problem, with treatment indications varying with the TNM stage. We aimed in this study to highlight the role of EUS in GC patients and also to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS for T and N staging in our group of patients with this disease. In this study, we included 41 GC patients, and individual values for every T stage accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, correct staging, understaging, and overstaging were calculated. EUS overall accuracy for T staging was 58.53%, with the highest sensitivity reached for the T4 stage, 95.83%. For N+vs. N-staging, EUS accuracy was 68.29%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 44.44%. The positive and negative predicted values for the presence or absence of nodal disease were 82.75%, respectively 33.33%. In conclusion, this study confirmed the importance of EUS for the assessment of GC T and N stage and highlighted the role of this tool in the detection of liver micrometastasis unrevealed by other imaging techniques like abdominal ultrasound or MSCT.
Keywords: Gastric cancer staging, endoscopic ultrasound, TNM stage.
Corresponding: Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Craiova, 200349, Romania, e-mail:bogdan.ungureanu@umfcv.ro
DOI 10.12865/CHSJ.48.01.13 - Download PDF Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Gastric Cancer Staging PDF
Download contents
Journal archive
- vol. 50 no. 2, 2024
- vol. 50 no. 1, 2024
- vol. 49 no. 4, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 3, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 2, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 1, 2023
- vol. 48 no. 4, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 3, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 2, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 1, 2022
- vol. 47 no. 4, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 3, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 2, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 1, 2021
- vol. 46 no. 4, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 3, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 2, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 1, 2020
- vol. 45 no. 4, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 3, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 2, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 1, 2019
- vol. 44 no. 4, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 3, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 2, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 1, 2018
- vol. 43 no. 4, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 3, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 2, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 1, 2017
- vol. 42 no. 4, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 3, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 2, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 1, 2016
- vol. 41 no. 4, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 3, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 2, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 1, 2015
- vol. 40 no. 4, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 3, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 2, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 1, 2014
- vol. 39 no. 4, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 3, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 2, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 1, 2013
- vol. 38 no. 4, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 3, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 2, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 1, 2012
- vol. 37 no. 4, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 3, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 2, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 1, 2011
- vol. 36 no. 4, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 3, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 2, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 1, 2010
- vol. 35 no. 4, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 3, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 2, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 1, 2009