Magnetic resonance colonography vs computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: an indirect comparison

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the recommended procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC), but majority of the patients were diagnosed with advanced or metastatic CRC. Currently, there were inconsistent results about the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in early CRC diagnosis. Our study conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC for CRC surveillance.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC, respectively.

RESULT

Twenty-five studies including 2985 individuals were selected in the final analysis. Eight studies evaluated the diagnostic value of MRC, and 17 studies assessed CTC. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in MRC for early detection of CRC were 0.98 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97), 15.48 (95% CI: 6.30-38.04), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.25), 115.09 (95% CI: 15.37-862.01), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CTC for diagnosing CRC were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 154.11 (95% CI: 67.81-350.22), 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.13), 642.51 (95% CI: 145.05-2846.02), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for DOR in all the subsets.

CONCLUSION

The findings of meta-analysis indicated that MRC and CTC have higher diagnostic values for early CRC diagnosis. However, the DOR for diagnosing CRC between MRC and CTC showed no significance.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Advanced colorectal cancers were associated with poor prognosis, and early diagnosis was important for high-risk patients. Colonography is commonly used for diagnosing colorectal cancer. However, a few studies reported the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) versus computed tomography colonography (CTC). This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-three studies on the diagnosis of colorectal cancer using MRC or CTC were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until July 2017. The ratios of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC.

RESULTS

The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and area under the ROC for MRC were 0.97 (0.81-1.00), 0.92 (0.80-0.97), 11.71 (4.46-30.73), 0.03 (0.00-0.24), and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively, for diagnosing colorectal cancer. The pooled estimates for CTC in diagnosing colorectal cancer were as follows: sensitivity, 0.96 (0.90-0.98); specificity, 1.00 (0.99-1.00); PLR, 197.32 (73.21-531.85); NLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.11); and area under the ROC, 1.00 (0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for sensitivity, specificity, and NLR. MRC was associated with lower PLR and area under the ROC for diagnosing colorectal cancer compared with CTC.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated MRC and CTC as potential diagnostic approaches for colorectal cancer. CTC had a higher diagnostic value of PLR and area under the ROC for colorectal cancer.

Five common tumor biomarkers and CEA for diagnosing early gastric cancer: A protocol for a network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection is the recommended treatment for the patients with gastric cancer, lots of patients show advanced or metastatic gastric cancer at the time of diagnosis. Detection of gastric cancer at early stages is a huge challenge because of lack of appropriate detection tests. Unfortunately, existing clinical guidelines focusing on early diagnosis of gastric cancer do not provide consistent and prudent evidence. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen was considered as a complementary test, although it is not good enough to diagnose early gastric cancer. There are no other tumor markers recommended for diagnosing early gastric cancer. This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 5 common tumor biomarkers (CA19-9, CA125, PG, IncRNA, and DNA methylation) and CEA and their combinations for diagnosing gastric cancer through network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE.com, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) will be searched from their inception to March 2018. We will include diagnostic tests which assessed the accuracy of the above-mentioned tumor biomarkers and CEA for diagnosing gastric cancer. The risk of bias for each study will be independently assessed as low, moderate, or high using criteria adapted from Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA 12.0 and R 3.4.1 software. The competing diagnostic tests will be ranked by a superiority index.

RESULTS

This study is ongoing and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide systematically suggestions to select different tumor biomarkers for detecting the early gastric cancer.

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers and CA19-9 for pancreatic cancer: a protocol for a network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, 80%-85% of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis. Detection of pancreatic cancer at early stages remains a great challenge due to lack of accurate detection tests. Recommendations in existing clinical practice guidelines on early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer are inconsistent and based on limited evidence. Most of them endorse measuring serum CA19-9 as a complementary test, but also state that it is not recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. There are currently no other tumour-specific markers recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers (CA242,carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)), CA125, microRNAs and K-ras gene mutation) and CA19-9 and their combinations for diagnosing pancreatic cancer using network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2017. The search will include the above-mentioned tumour biomarkers for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, including CA19-9. The risk of bias for each study will be independently assessed as low, moderate or high using criteria adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.12.0 and R software V.3.4.1. The competing diagnostic tests will be ranked by a superiority index.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017064627.

Screening of colorectal cancer: present and future

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Currently, about 60-70% of diagnosed cases in symptomatic patients are detected at an advanced stage of disease. Earlier stage detection through the use of screening strategies would allow for better outcomes in terms of reducing the disease burden. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to review the current published evidence from literature which assesses the performance and effectiveness of different screening tests for the early detection of CRC. Expert commentary: Adequate screening strategies can reduce CRC incidence and mortality. In the last few decades, several tests have been proposed for CRC screening. To date, there is still insufficient evidence to identify which approach is definitively superior, and no screening strategy for CRC can therefore be defined as universally ideal. The best strategy would be the one that can be economically viable and to which the patient can adhere best to over time. The latest guidelines suggest colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immuno-chemical test (FIT) for people with normal risk, while for individuals with high risk or hereditary syndromes specific recommendations are provided.

Comparison of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Video-Assisted Mediastinoscopy for Mediastinal Staging of Lung Cancer

Video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are the two most commonly used invasive methods for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. The objective of this review is to assess and compare the overall diagnostic values of VAM and EBUS-TBNA. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that evaluated EBUS-TBNA or VAM accuracy. Quantitative meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity, and study quality was evaluated. Meta-regression was applied to indirectly compare EBUS-TBNA and VAM after adjusting quality score, study design, and station number. A total of ten studies with 999 EBUS-TBNA patients and seven studies with 915 VAM patients were included. Since the pooled specificity was 100% for both modalities, sensitivity was mainly analyzed. The pooled sensitivities for EBUS-TBNA and VAM were 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.88) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.90), respectively. Subgroup analyses of quality score, study design, station number and rapid on-site cytologic evaluation showed no significant influence on the overall sensitivity of the two modalities. After adjusting quality score, study design, and station number, the pooled sensitivities of VAM and EBUS-TBNA were not significantly different. However, more procedural complications and fewer false negatives (FN) were found with VAM than EBUS-TBNA. VAM and EBUS exhibited equally high diagnostic accuracy for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. Due to lower morbidity with EBUS-TBNA and fewer FN with VAM, EBUS-TBNA should be performed first, followed by VAM in the case of a negative needle result.

Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: Clinical application

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) has no longer been the leading cancer killer worldwide for years with the exponential development in computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/CT as well as virtual colonoscopy for early detection, the CRC related mortality is still high. The objective of CRC screening is to reduce the burden of CRC and thereby the morbidity and mortality rates of the disease. It is believed that this goal can be achieved by regularly screening the average-risk population, enabling the detection of cancer at early, curable stages, and polyps before they become cancerous. Large-scale screening with multimodality imaging approaches plays an important role in reaching that goal to detect polyps, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and CRC in early stage. This article reviews kinds of presentative imaging procedures for various screening options and updates detecting, staging and re-staging of CRC patients for determining the optimal therapeutic method and forecasting the risk of CRC recurrence and the overall prognosis. The combination use of virtual colonoscopy and conventional endoscopy, advantages and limitations of these modalities are also discussed.

[Anemia in the elderly]

Anemia is a common disorder in the elderly and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In elderly subjects, in whom anemia is highly prevalent, there are several aspects, such as a hemoglobin at a level which should concern us limit, or identifying its causes, that are not easy to establish. This review focuses on knowing what is considered to be normal hemoglobin levels in adults and the common causes and potential consequences of anemia in elderly patients. It provides a diagnostic algorithm and an approach to treatment that addresses new treatments such as parenteral iron drugs and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions.

AIM

Evaluation of different methodologies used to indirectly compare interventions based on meta analyses of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Systematic review of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE and MEDLINE for reports including meta analyses that contained an indirect comparison. Searching was completed in July 2007. No restriction was placed on language or year of publication.

RESULTS

Sixty-two papers identified contained indirect comparisons of treatments. Five different methodologies were employed: comparing point estimates (1/62); comparing 95% confidence intervals (26/62); performing statistical tests on summary estimates (8/62); indirect comparison using a single common comparator (20/62); and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) (7/62). The only methodologies that provide an estimate of the difference between the interventions under consideration and a measure of the uncertainty around that estimate are indirect comparison using a single common comparator and MTC. The MTC might have advantages over other approaches because it is not reliant on a single common comparator and can incorporate the results of direct and indirect comparisons into the analysis. Indirect comparisons require an underlying assumption of consistency of evidence. Utilising any of the methodologies when this assumption is not true can produce misleading results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of either indirect comparison using a common comparator or MTC provides estimates for use in decision making, with the preferred methodology being dependent on the available data.

Colonography by CT, MRI and PET/CT combined with conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and staging

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cancer killer worldwide. But the disease is both curable and preventable at an early stage. Regular CRC cancer screening has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from CRC. However, the importance of large-scale screening is only now starting to be appreciated. This article reviews a variety of imaging procedures available for detecting ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), polyps and CRC in their early stage and also presents details on various screening options. Detecting, staging and re-staging of patients with CRC also require multimodality, multistep imaging approaches. Staging and re-staging with conventional colonoscopy (CC), computer tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and positron emission tomography/computer tomography colonography (PET/CTC) are of paramount importance in determining the most appropriate therapeutic method and in predicting the risk of tumor recurrence and overall prognosis. The advantages and limitations of these modalities are also discussed.

Chronic pain reconsidered

Chronic pain has been traditionally defined by pain duration, but this approach has limited empirical support and does not account for chronic pain's multi-dimensionality. This study compared duration-based and prospective approaches to defining chronic pain in terms of their ability to predict future pain course and outcomes for primary care patients with three common pain conditions: back pain (n=971), headache (n=1078), or orofacial pain (n=455). At baseline, their chronic pain was classified retrospectively based on Pain Days in the prior six months and prospectively with a prognostic Risk Score identifying patients with "possible" or "probable" chronic pain. The 0-28 Risk Score was based on pain intensity, pain-related activity limitations, depressive symptoms, number of pain sites, and Pain Days. Pain and behavioral outcomes were assessed at six-month follow-up, and long-term opioid use was assessed two to five years after baseline. Risk Score consistently predicted clinically significant pain at six months better than did Pain Days alone (area under the curve of 0.74-0.78 for Risk Score vs. 0.63-0.73 for Pain Days). Risk Score was a stronger predictor of future SF-36 Physical Function, pain-related worry, unemployment, and long-term opioid use than Pain Days alone. Thus, for these three common pain conditions, a prognostic Risk Score had better predictive validity for pain outcomes than did pain duration alone. However, chronic pain appears to be a continuum rather than a distinct class, because long-term pain outcomes are highly variable and inherently uncertain.