Subset Analysis of a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Magnifying Chromoendoscopy with Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Stage Diagnosis of Early Stage Colorectal Cancer
MetadataShow full item record
CitationYamada, Tomonori, Takaya Shimura, Masahide Ebi, Yoshikazu Hirata, Hirotaka Nishiwaki, Takashi Mizushima, Koki Asukai, Shozo Togawa, Satoru Takahashi, and Takashi Joh. 2015. “Subset Analysis of a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Magnifying Chromoendoscopy with Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Stage Diagnosis of Early Stage Colorectal Cancer.” PLoS ONE 10 (8): e0134942. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134942.
AbstractBackground: Our recent prospective study found equivalent accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy (MC) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for diagnosing the invasion depth of colorectal cancer (CRC); however, whether these tools show diagnostic differences in categories such as tumor size and morphology remains unclear. Hence, we conducted detailed subset analysis of the prospective data. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, comparative trial, a total of 70 patients with early, flat CRC were enrolled from February 2011 to December 2012, and the results of 66 lesions were finally analyzed. Patients were randomly allocated to primary MC followed by EUS or to primary EUS followed by MC. Diagnoses of invasion depth by each tool were divided into intramucosal to slight submucosal invasion (invasion depth <1000 μm) and deep submucosal invasion (invasion depth ≥1000 μm), and then compared with the final pathological diagnosis by an independent pathologist blinded to clinical data. To standardize diagnoses among examiners, this trial was started after achievement of a mean κ value of ≥0.6 which was calculated from the average of κ values between each pair of participating endoscopists. Results: Both MC and EUS showed similar diagnostic outcomes, with no significant differences in prediction of invasion depth in subset analyses according to tumor size, location, and morphology. Lesions that were consistently diagnosed as Tis/T1-SMS or ≥T1-SMD with both tools revealed accuracy of 76–78%. Accuracy was low in borderline lesions with irregular pit pattern in MC and distorted findings of the third layer in EUS (MC, 58.5%; EUS, 50.0%). Conclusions: MC and EUS showed the same limited accuracy for predicting invasion depth in all categories of early CRC. Since the irregular pit pattern in MC, distorted findings to the third layer in EUS and inconsistent diagnosis between both tools were associated with low accuracy, further refinements or even novel methods are still needed for such lesions. Trial Registration University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN 000005085
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:21462167
- HMS Scholarly Articles