Comparison of Oral Contrast-Enhanced Transabdominal Ultrasound Imaging With Transverse Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Preoperative Tumor Staging of Advanced Gastric Carcinoma

Risk stratification of gastric cancer screening in community population based on oral contrast-enhanced ultrasonography examination: A 3-year follow-up analysis report

Objective

This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the use of oral contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (O-CEUS) in assessing the thickness of the gastric wall for gastric cancer (GC) screening and to establish screening strategies for GC with different risk stratifications based on the gastric wall thickness.

Methods

From January 2015 to March 2020, people who underwent O-CEUS at the Physical Examination Center of our hospital with at least three years of follow-up were included in this study. The thickness of the gastric wall measured by O-CEUS was divided into three groups using 6 mm and 9 mm as cutoff values. The occurrence of GC in each group was observed. The imaging and clinical information of these populations were recorded and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox's proportional hazards regression were performed to calculate the risk of GC occurrence.

Results

A total of 4,047 people were finally included in this study. During the follow-up period, GC occurred in 7 individuals (incidence rate 0.17%). Among them, according to the thickness of the gastric wall, one case occurred in Group A (< 6 mm), two cases occurred in Group B (6-9 mm), and four cases occurred in Group C (>9mm). Based on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the curves of the three groups were significantly different (P < 0.01). The risk of GC occurrence in Group C and Group B were higher than that in Group A (4.76E+2-fold and 1.50E+2-fold).

Conclusion

O-CEUS is a convenient, economical, safe, and noninvasive screening method for GC. Measuring the thickness of the gastric wall is helpful to predict the risk of GC occurrence according to our stratification screening system.

Diagnostic accuracy of gastric filling ultrasonography in preoperative invasion depth (T stage) of gastric cancer: Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of gastric filling ultrasonography in the preoperative invasion depth (T staging) of gastric cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched several online electronic databases including CNKI, Wanfang Medical Database, VIP, CBM, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2010 to December 2021, identifying the study about gastric filling ultrasonography for diagnostic of invasion depth of gastric cancer. Using bivariate mixed effect model to calculate the sensitivity (Sen), specificity (spe), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Draw the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve, likelihood ratio matrix and fagan diagram to evaluate the diagnostic value of gastric filling ultrasonography in the preoperative invasion depth of gastric cancer. Sen analysis and Publication bias tests were performed.

RESULTS

This study obtained 21 literatures and the quality were good. The pooled Sen and spe of gastric filling ultrasonography was: T1: 0.63 (95% CI:0.51-0.73), 0.96 (95% CI:0.94-0.98); T2: 0.67 (95% CI:0.62-0.71), 0.90 (95% CI:0.88-0.93); T3: 0.79 (95% CI:0.75-0.82), 0.83 (95% CI:0.80-0.86); T4: 0.80 (95% CI:0.73-0.86), 0.96 (95% CI:0.94-0.97), respectively. In addition, the PLR and NLR of gastric filling ultrasonography was: T1: 16.74 (95% CI:9.98-28.09), 0.39 (95% CI:0.29-0.52); T2: 6.98 (95% CI:5.20-9.38), 0.36 (95% CI:0.31-0.42); T3: 4.65 (95% CI:3.78-5.73), 0.26 (95% CI:0.21-0.31); T4: 18.51 (95% CI:12.77-26.83), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.29), respectively. The DOR of gastric filling ultrasonography in T1-T4 was: 43.17 (95% CI:20.62-90.41),19.13 (95% CI:12.61-29.03), 18.15 (95% CI:12.86-25.62), 90.63 (95% CI:47.36-173.41), respectively. The sROC curve revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) of T1-T4 was: 0.93, 0.82, 0.87, 0.97, respectively. Sen analysis indicated that the study was steadily. And there is no publication bias in this study. But the study has some heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Gastric filling ultrasonography is useful for clinical preoperative T staging of gastric cancer, and the result indicate that the accuracy of gastric filling ultrasonography in discriminating T1-T4 is higher than that in discriminating T2 - T3. It can be used as an imaging diagnostic method for preoperative T staging of gastric cancer.

A meta-analysis of the utility of transabdominal ultrasound for evaluation of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical discovery/staging of gastric cancer (GC) is crucial in designing the treatment strategies and largely decides GC patients' survival. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) are 2 useful GC diagnosis tools. High doses of radiation associated with CT make its use limited, while the process of EUS is stressful, time-consuming, and challenging. Transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) is a promising candidate to address these shortcomings. This study aimed to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of TAUS in discriminating between advanced and early GCs, as well as compare its utility with other imaging techniques.Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 2019. Data were analyzed using RevMan software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK), and pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, and other features were acquired. Seven papers were eventually selected for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

TAUS had distinct diagnostic efficacies for early and advanced GC patients. The accuracy and sensitivity were significantly higher in the advanced group. A high color Doppler vascularity index and a lesion larger than 1 cm were 2 features of advanced GC. Moreover, TAUS had a comparable (but slightly higher) accuracy than CT and EUS.

CONCLUSIONS

TAUS is more accurate and sensitive in diagnosing advanced GC compared to early GC. More features of advanced GC are required to improve the recognition ability. At least, TAUS can be considered as a complementary imaging diagnostic tool to CT and EUS.

Preoperative Tumor Staging of Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Double Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Multidetector Computed Tomography

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of double contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in the preoperative tumor staging of gastric cancer (GC) to stratify patients for suitable treatment.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients with GC proved by histologic findings were included. The sensitivity and specificity of double CEUS and MDCT for tumor staging were calculated and compared. The differences between these methods were evaluated by using the area under the curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in AUC values for T1 and T2 stages between double CEUS and MDCT (P = .190 and .256, respectively). However, the sensitivity of double CEUS in the detection of the T1 stage was higher than that of MDCT (88% versus 75%). The AUC values of MDCT for T3 and T4 stages were 0.833 and 0.905, which were both significantly higher than those of double CEUS (0.759 and 0.696; P < .05). The sensitivities of double CEUS and MDCT for the T3 stage were both 89%, but the accuracy and specificity of double CEUS were lower than those of MDCT (76% versus 83% and 63% versus 78%). The specificities of double CEUS and MDCT for the T4 stage were both 98%, but the accuracy and sensitivity of double CEUS were lower than those of MDCT (85% versus 94% and 42% versus 83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multidetector CT is superior to double CEUS for T3 and T4 GC, and double CEUS may be regarded as an important complementary method to MDCT.

Value of multi-slice spiral computed tomography in the diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes and N-stage of gastric cancer

Objective

To establish new diagnostic criteria for improvement of the accuracy of multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) in diagnosing the N-stage and lymph node (LN) metastasis of gastric cancer (GC).

Methods

MSCT was performed with plain and triphasic dynamic contrast enhancement. Different regions of LN metastasis and N-staging were determined according to the herein-proposed combined diagnostic criteria and were then correlated with the pathological analysis. The Kappa consistency test was used to study the accuracy of MSCT.

Results

The accuracy of MSCT in diagnosing the N-stage as a whole was 86.3%, and that in diagnosing LN metastasis was 79.1% to 98.9%. The Kappa values for stages N0, N1, and N3 ranged from 0.449 to 0.662, indicating good consistency in diagnosing these three stages between MSCT and the postsurgical pathological results. The K_total value was 0.567 between MSCT and the postsurgical pathological results in diagnosing LN metastasis. The risk of LN metastasis increased with the progression of lesion infiltrates.

Conclusions

Application of the combined diagnostic criteria increased the diagnostic performance of MSCT in not only judging the N-stage but also diagnosing LN metastasis. This study will provide valuable reference data for surgical planning for patients with GC in the clinical setting.