2004
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-814522
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endosonography Versus Helical Computed Tomography for Locoregional Staging of Gastric Cancer

Abstract: EUS is more accurate than HCT in the T-staging of gastric carcinoma. Both methods are comparable for N-staging, when this is done according to the older, fourth edition of the TNM classification. If the fifth edition is used, EUS is less accurate than HCT.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
67
0
9

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
4
67
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…• The sensitivity and specifi city of AUS for the detection of LN metastasis varied between 12.2% and [33] 2004 − − − − − + − + + + − − − 2 2 31 Lee et al [42] 2001 − − − + + + − + + + + + + 4 5 69 Düx et al [53] 1997 + − + + − + − + + − + + + 5 4 69 Kim et al [54] 1997 − − + − + + − − + + − + + 3 4 54 Stell et al [57] 1996 − − − − + − − + + + + + + 2 5 54 EUS Lok et al [17] 2008 − − − − + − − − + + + − + 1 4 38 Bentrem et al [19] 2007 + − − + + + − + + − + + + 5 4 69 Tan et al [20] 2007 − − + + + + − + + + − − − 5 2 54 Arocena et al [24] 2006 + − − − + + − − + + − + + 3 4 54 Ganpathi et al [25] 2006 − − − − + + − + + + + − + 3 4 54 Tsendsuren et al [26] 2006 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Ang et al [27] 2006 + − − − + + − − + − − + − 3 2 38 Potrc et al [29] 2006 + + − + + + − + + − − + + 6 3 69 Polkowski et al [34] 2004 + − − − + + − + + + + + + 4 5 69 Bhandari et al [35] 2004 + − − − + + − + + + − − + 4 3 54 Javaid et al [36] 2004 − − − + + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Habermann et al [37] 2004 + − − + + + − + + + + − + 5 4 69 Xi et al [40] 2003 − − − + + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Chen et al [41] 2002 − − + + + + − + + + + + + 5 5 77 Willis et al [43] 2000 + − − + + + − + + + + + − 5 4 69 Tseng et al [44] 2000 − − − + + + − + + + − + + 4 4 62 Mancino et al [46] 2000 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Akahoshi et al [48] 1998 + − − − + + − + + + + + − 4 4 62 Hunerbein et al [49] 1998 + − − − + + − + + − − − + 4 2 46 Wang et al [50] 1998 + − − + + + − + + + − + − 5 3 62 Hamada et al [52] 1997 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Hunerbein et al [55] 1996 + − − − − + − + + − + + − 3 3 46 François et al [56] 1996 + − − − + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Perng et al [58] 1996 + − − + + − − − + + − + − 3 3 46 Smith et al [60] 1993 − − − + + + − + + − − − + 4 2 46 Ziegler et al [61] 1993...…”
Section: Staging Performanceunclassified
“…• The sensitivity and specifi city of AUS for the detection of LN metastasis varied between 12.2% and [33] 2004 − − − − − + − + + + − − − 2 2 31 Lee et al [42] 2001 − − − + + + − + + + + + + 4 5 69 Düx et al [53] 1997 + − + + − + − + + − + + + 5 4 69 Kim et al [54] 1997 − − + − + + − − + + − + + 3 4 54 Stell et al [57] 1996 − − − − + − − + + + + + + 2 5 54 EUS Lok et al [17] 2008 − − − − + − − − + + + − + 1 4 38 Bentrem et al [19] 2007 + − − + + + − + + − + + + 5 4 69 Tan et al [20] 2007 − − + + + + − + + + − − − 5 2 54 Arocena et al [24] 2006 + − − − + + − − + + − + + 3 4 54 Ganpathi et al [25] 2006 − − − − + + − + + + + − + 3 4 54 Tsendsuren et al [26] 2006 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Ang et al [27] 2006 + − − − + + − − + − − + − 3 2 38 Potrc et al [29] 2006 + + − + + + − + + − − + + 6 3 69 Polkowski et al [34] 2004 + − − − + + − + + + + + + 4 5 69 Bhandari et al [35] 2004 + − − − + + − + + + − − + 4 3 54 Javaid et al [36] 2004 − − − + + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Habermann et al [37] 2004 + − − + + + − + + + + − + 5 4 69 Xi et al [40] 2003 − − − + + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Chen et al [41] 2002 − − + + + + − + + + + + + 5 5 77 Willis et al [43] 2000 + − − + + + − + + + + + − 5 4 69 Tseng et al [44] 2000 − − − + + + − + + + − + + 4 4 62 Mancino et al [46] 2000 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Akahoshi et al [48] 1998 + − − − + + − + + + + + − 4 4 62 Hunerbein et al [49] 1998 + − − − + + − + + − − − + 4 2 46 Wang et al [50] 1998 + − − + + + − + + + − + − 5 3 62 Hamada et al [52] 1997 − − − + + + − + + + − − − 4 2 46 Hunerbein et al [55] 1996 + − − − − + − + + − + + − 3 3 46 François et al [56] 1996 + − − − + + − + + + − + − 4 3 54 Perng et al [58] 1996 + − − + + − − − + + − + − 3 3 46 Smith et al [60] 1993 − − − + + + − + + − − − + 4 2 46 Ziegler et al [61] 1993...…”
Section: Staging Performanceunclassified
“…Thus the diagnostic precision for stage T varies between 70 and 90% depending on the series and on what type of endoscopic ultrasound is used, ultrasound frequencies and the location of the tumor (cardia or rest of the stomach) (8)(9)(10)(11)(12) deep staging are observed in stage T2 (8-12) tumors diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound. On most occasions, in our series, it was caused by overstaging (tumors in stage T1 that were wrongly interpreted as being in stage T2).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Factors which have been described in cases of overstaging in other series include: inflammation, peritumorous necrosis and fibrosis -which usually exists in ulcerated tumor lesions-or obtaining ultrasound images tangential to the gastric wall, above all in tumors located in gastric antrum, incisura and fundus. Errors due to understaging may be due to deep microscopic invasion undetectable by the technique, ultrasound artefacts in relation to air content, mucous or food remains retained in the stomach or anatomical characteristics such as the absence of serosa at the lesser curvature and anterior wall which is why tumors in this location may be incorrectly interpreted as T2 despite transwall infiltration (8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Diagnostic precision in gastric cancer endoscopic ultrasound ganglion staging is lower than in T staging and varies from 55 to 87% in published series (3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations