Subset Analysis of a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Magnifying Chromoendoscopy with Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Stage Diagnosis of Early Stage Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

BackgroundOur 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsBoth 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%).ConclusionsMC 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 RegistrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN 000005085

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of malignant non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

“…Thus, reliability and accuracy of MRI in managing non-pedunculated T1 lesions seems to be poor and of little use, which is supported by one previous study on early CRC 24 . On top of that, conventional imaging methods such as MRI, CT and endoscopic ultrasound cannot effectively discriminate the detailed level of submucosal tumor cell infiltration (sm1 – 3), which is pivotal for treatment decisions 25 26 . Taken together, pretherapeutic diagnosis remains a challenge and development of refined methods to evaluate depth of invasion in the submucosa is critical for improving clinical management of early CRC.…”

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2022

“…A subset analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing CE with EUS for staging of early colorectal cancer (CRC) showed no advantage of EUS over CE, with a global accuracy of 78 % for both techniques [60]. Since the 2015 guideline, four new meta-analyses have been published that address the diagnostic accuracy of EUS, CT, and MRI.…”

Depth diagnosis of early colorectal cancer: Magnifying chromoendoscopy or image enhanced endoscopy with magnification?

“…There are many reports of invasion depth diagnosis using endoscopic ultrasonography and comparative studies with MCE; however, most of them did not report a difference in the accuracy rate of both modalities. [47][48][49][50][51] Therefore, it is considered sufficient to diagnose the invasive depth using the magnifying endoscope at present, because magnifying endoscopy can be diagnosed with the colonoscope that is usually used.…”