The Accuracy of MRI for Esophageal Cancer Staging

医学 食管癌 流行病学 阶段(地层学) 发育不良 癌症分期 新辅助治疗 放射科 癌症 普通外科 医学物理学 内科学 古生物学 乳腺癌 生物
作者
Mariska Leeflang
出处
期刊:Radiology [Radiological Society of North America]
卷期号:299 (3): 595-596 被引量:4
标识
DOI:10.1148/radiol.2021210374
摘要

HomeRadiologyVol. 299, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryFree AccessEditorialThe Accuracy of MRI for Esophageal Cancer StagingMariska M. G. Leeflang Mariska M. G. Leeflang Author AffiliationsFrom the Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22700, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Mariska M. G. Leeflang Published Online:Mar 30 2021https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210374MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In See also the article by Lee et al in this issue.Dr Leeflang is an associate professor in clinical epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Data Science at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers. Her research interests focus on methods development for the evaluation of medical tests and diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. She is also co-convenor of the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Test Methods Group.Download as PowerPointOpen in Image Viewer Staging of esophageal cancer is important because it informs the prognosis of the patient as well as decisions about the appropriate treatment. The earliest tumor stage is high-grade dysplasia, and it is denoted as stage T0. It then ranges from tumor stage 1 (T1) to T4, with declining survival rates (1). After the patient has been treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, monitoring of the patient may detect early recurrence or aggravation of the tumor. Staging may be performed with a combination of imaging modalities, although each of those modalities (PET, CT, endoscopic US, and endoscopic US–guided biopsy) may have adverse effects and may have limited sensitivity (2–4). Because of the recent developments in MRI technology, Lee and colleagues (5) synthesized the sensitivity and specificity of MRI for the staged diagnosis of esophageal cancer.The systematic review addresses the following: (a) differentiation between tumor stage 0 (T0) and stage T1 or higher, (b) differentiation between tumor stage up to stage T2 and T3 or higher, and (c) differentiation between nodal stage 0 (N0, no spread to lymph nodes) and stage N1 or higher. The authors retrieved 20 studies of the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for determining the stage of esophageal carcinoma before esophagectomy and pathologic staging. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a standard checklist for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (version 2), and the meta-analysis they performed took into account the bivariate nature of the data at hand.Eleven studies analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of MRI to differentiate between stage T0 and stage T1 or higher. In two of those, the participants without esophageal cancer were healthy volunteers. This may have caused both a high risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability, as healthy volunteers are usually not among the patient population who would undergo MRI. The results were variable, especially for specificity. This may have been caused by the low numbers of participants without esophageal cancer, leading to chance variation and broad CIs. The overall sensitivity was 92% (95% CI: 82, 96), and the overall specificity was 67% (95% CI: 51, 81).The median prevalence among the studies without healthy control participants was 80% (calculated from Table E3 [online]), which means that of every 100 patients assessed for stage T0 disease versus stage T1 disease or higher, 80 persons had stage T1 disease or higher. One could hypothesize a population of 100 patients who were all examined for esophageal cancer with MRI. Of the 80 patients who in reality had stage T1 disease or higher, 74 (92%) were also found to have stage T1 disease or higher according to their MRI results. Six of the 80 patients with stage T1 disease or higher were indicated to have stage T0 disease according to their MRI results. Of the 20 patients with stage T0 disease, 13 will be told that they are in stage T0, whereas seven will be told that they have at least stage T1 disease. In summary, this means that 81 patients will be told that they have stage T1 disease or higher (positive MRI results), whereas seven of these will actually have a false-positive result. Whether this is a worrying result depends on the next steps to be taken. It also means that 19 patients will be told that they have stage T0 disease, of whom six will actually have a higher stage (and thus have false-negative results). Here as well, the next steps determine whether this number is acceptable or not. These numbers may of course vary depending on the rounding factors and CIs.Unfortunately, the review does not explain what these next steps are, and whether the 8% of the patients with higher disease stages will be understaged is problematic. Also, Lee et al (5) claim that the summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity are similar in the overall set of studies and in those focusing on the use of MRI after neoadjuvant treatment. Although the CIs overlap and sensitivity indeed seems to be similar, the summary estimate for specificity is considerably lower in the treated population (55%, 95% CI: 37, 71) than in the population before treatment (70%, 95% CI: 46, 86). The lower specificity may be a problem in monitoring because specificity declines with multiple testing rounds. If a patient has positive test results (above a certain threshold), then the patient will be referred for further treatment, but the patient will not be set back to having a negative result. If a patient has negative test results, then this patient will be tested again next time, with another chance to receive a potentially false-positive result. Hence, monitoring may improve sensitivity, but it will also increase the risk of false-positive findings.The second question was about the distinction between stage T2 disease or lower and stage T3 disease or higher. The overall sensitivity for the 10 included studies was 86% (95% CI: 76, 92), and the specificity was 86% (95% CI: 75, 93). The median prevalence among the studies was 46% (calculated from Table E3 [online]), which means that of every 100 patients undergoing MRI, 46 persons had stage T3 disease or higher. Of these, about six patients will be regarded to have stage T2 disease or lower (false-negative findings), according to the MRI results. Of the 54 patients with stage T2 disease or lower, eight will be considered to have stage T3 or higher disease (false-positive findings). Again, whether these numbers are problematic depends on the consequences of being staged as stage T2 or lower or stage T3 or higher.Ten included studies addressed the third question about nodal involvement. The more regional lymph nodes were involved, the higher the N staging. The overall sensitivity for detecting patients with at least one regional lymph node involved was 71% (95% CI: 60, 80), and the specificity was 72% (95% CI: 64, 79). The median prevalence among the studies was 48% (calculated from Table E3 [online]), which means that of every 100 patients undergoing MRI, a median of 48 persons had at least one regional lymph node affected.The authors conclude that MRI has a sensitivity superior to that of CT and PET. Although this indeed seems to be the case, this conclusion is based on an indirect comparison. In the ideal world, one would include patients suspected of having esophageal cancer and have them all undergo CT, PET, and MRI to draw firm conclusions about the relative sensitivity between the three modalities. A systematic review addressing such a comparative question should ideally limit the inclusion to studies directly comparing two or more different modalities against the reference standard. However, in practice, this is difficult if not impossible. It may be too burdensome or too costly to apply all relevant modalities to all patients, and the patient groups may be too small to randomize between modalities. Still, this does not justify indirect comparisons without any caveats. It is possible that the studies evaluating PET and CT included different patients so that the difference between the modalities is not because of the techniques, but because of the included patients.In conclusion, MRI has a high sensitivity and relatively low specificity for helping diagnose esophageal cancer. It remains to be seen whether the sensitivity and specificity are sufficiently high to replace other modalities. This will depend on the consequences of false-negative findings or false-positive findings in patients. It will also depend on the true difference in accuracy between the modalities, in addition to cost, burden, and other factors that may influence the use of a test in practice.Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: M.M.G.L. disclosed no relevant relationships.References1. Berry MF. Esophageal cancer: staging system and guidelines for staging and treatment. J Thorac Dis 2014;6(Suppl 3):S289–S297. Medline, Google Scholar2. Leong TL, Loveland PM, Gorelik A, Irving L, Steinfort DP. Preoperative Staging by EBUS in cN0/N1 Lung Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2019;26(3):155–165. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Sun F, Chen T, Han J, Ye P, Hu J. Staging accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound for esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Dis Esophagus 2015;28(8):757–771. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Crabtree TD, Kosinski AS, Puri V, et al. Evaluation of the reliability of clinical staging of T2 N0 esophageal cancer: a review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96(2):382–390. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Lee SL, Yadav P, Starekova J, et al. Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology 2021. 10.1148/radiol.2021202857. Published online March 30, 2021. Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived: Feb 9 2021Revision requested: Feb 17 2021Revision received: Feb 18 2021Accepted: Feb 22 2021Published online: Mar 30 2021Published in print: June 2021 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsAccompanying This ArticleDiagnostic Performance of MRI for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisMar 30 2021RadiologyRecommended Articles Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisRadiology2021Volume: 299Issue: 3pp. 583-594Advanced-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Restaging System after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on the Basis of MR Imaging Determines SurvivalRadiology2016Volume: 282Issue: 1pp. 171-181Application of N Descriptors Proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer in Clinical StagingRadiology2021Volume: 300Issue: 2pp. 450-457Breast MRI during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Lack of Background Parenchymal Enhancement Suppression and Inferior Treatment ResponseRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 2pp. 295-308Effect of Longitudinal Variation in Tumor Volume Estimation for MRI-guided Personalization of Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant TreatmentRadiology: Imaging Cancer2023Volume: 5Issue: 4See More RSNA Education Exhibits High-Resolution MRI Pretherapeutic Evaluation for Esophageal Cancer? What the Radiologists Need to Know?Digital Posters2020How To Interpret Esophageal Cancer MR For Practical Use In Oncologic Decision MakingDigital Posters2021Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NETs): Case-based Pictorial Review Of The AJCC 8th Edition Staging SystemDigital Posters2021 RSNA Case Collection Locally advanced, metastatic prostate adenocarcinomaRSNA Case Collection2020Recurrent breast cancer on CEUSRSNA Case Collection2021Synovial sarcoma of neckRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 299, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
迅速的爆米花完成签到,获得积分20
2秒前
gumiho1007完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
4秒前
5秒前
科研通AI5应助自信念云采纳,获得10
8秒前
8秒前
TJN发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
lingua发布了新的文献求助200
10秒前
11秒前
Yanjie完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
王wangxuanting完成签到,获得积分20
14秒前
张琳琳完成签到 ,获得积分10
15秒前
清爽猕猴桃完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
无名发布了新的文献求助10
17秒前
18秒前
完美世界应助清爽猕猴桃采纳,获得10
19秒前
19秒前
123发布了新的文献求助20
19秒前
22秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
24秒前
24秒前
传奇3应助姜雪采纳,获得30
25秒前
都是小儿卡通书完成签到,获得积分10
26秒前
27秒前
澡雪发布了新的文献求助10
27秒前
wanci应助123采纳,获得10
28秒前
JILIGULU完成签到,获得积分10
28秒前
jindui发布了新的文献求助10
31秒前
我爱学习发布了新的文献求助10
32秒前
34秒前
李三阳发布了新的文献求助10
34秒前
hj990806完成签到,获得积分10
36秒前
37秒前
123mmmm发布了新的文献求助10
39秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 700
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3975458
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3519866
关于积分的说明 11199996
捐赠科研通 3256213
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1798133
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 877386
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 806305