Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT and EUS for Clinical TN Staging of Gastric Cancer.
10.5230/jkgca.2009.9.4.177
- Author:
Ru Mi SHIN
1
;
Ju Hee LEE
;
Moon Soo LEE
;
Do Joong PARK
;
Hyung Ho KIM
;
Han Kwang YANG
;
Kuhn Uk LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hhkim@snubh.org
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Computed tomography;
Endoscophic ultrasonography;
Agreement;
Gastric cancer
- MeSH:
Adoption;
Area Under Curve;
Discrimination (Psychology);
Gastrectomy;
Humans;
Prognosis;
Retrospective Studies;
Stomach Neoplasms
- From:Journal of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
2009;9(4):177-185
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Preoperative clinical staging of gastric cancer is very important for determining the treatment plans and predicting the prognosis. The previous reports regarding the accuracy of computed tomography or endoscopic ultrasound for the preoperative staging of gastric cancer have shown various outcomes. We analyzed the diagnostic performance of CT and EUS, which are important staging tools for the staging of TN gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,174 patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer at Seoul National University Bundang Hostpital from May, 2003 to December, 2007. We derived the Kappa value to examine the agreement of the preoperative staging obtained from CT and EUS with the pathological staging. RESULTS: The mean age of the 1,174 patients was 59.31+/-11.98 years. Six hundred thirty seven patients had early gastric cancer and 536 had advanced gastric cancer. The diagnostic performance between CT and EUS for the T staging showed no significant difference between CT and EUS for the kappa values. The kappa values showed moderate agreement at 0.4039 (P=0.021) and 0.4201 (P=0.026), respectively. This suggests that there is no difference between the two examinations for the overall T staging. Analysis of the discrimination of mucosal and submucosal lesions with EUS showed an accuracy of 58.92% and a Kappa value of 0.206 (P<0.001), suggesting fair agreement and a lower diagnostic performance than expected. To differentiate lesions with stages higher than or equal to T2 or T3 from the lesion with stages lower than T2 or T3, respectively, adoption of the higher stage from the CT staging or the EUS staging showed a larger AUC of 0.84 than that from either stage alone. The CT-derived node stage had the higher diagnostic performance (68.55%) than that of the EUS-derived node stage (60.82%) for the node staging. CONCLUSION: The CT-derived stage and EUS-derived stage showed comparable results for determining the T stage of gastric cancer. Yet the higher stage of the two stages from CT and EUS most accurately discriminated between those lesions with stages higher than T2 and those lesions with stages lower than T2.
