Publications

Detailed Information

Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection?

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Jeongmin-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Sang Gyun-
dc.contributor.authorIm, Jong Pil-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Joo Sung-
dc.contributor.authorSong, In Sung-
dc.contributor.authorJung, Hyun Chae-
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-27T07:33:44Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-27T07:33:44Z-
dc.date.issued2010-12-
dc.identifier.citationSURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES; Vol.24 12; 3177-3185ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0930-2794-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/77632-
dc.description.abstractEndoscopic resection as curative treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) requires accurate staging for depth of invasion (T) before therapy. This study aimed to compare T staging of EGC using a miniprobe with that of conventional endoscopy (CE). A total of 388 patients with suspected of EGC by CE were prospectively enrolled in the study. After miniprobe staging by an experienced endosonographer, CE staging was performed by another endoscopist who was blinded to the miniprobe assessment. Patients underwent either endoscopic resection (n = 325) or surgery (=63) according to staging results. Results of each method were compared with the histology of the resected specimen. Clinicopathological factors affecting accuracy of each test were also evaluated. Overall accuracy of miniprobe and CE staging was 78.9% (306/388) and 81.4% (316/388), respectively (p = 0.052). Sensitivity for T1m was more than 95% (miniprobe 98.7%, CE 97.7%), whereas sensitivity for T1sm was lower at 6.6% for miniprobe and 23.7% for CE (p = 0.002). Among nine lesions identically considered submucosal invasion by both methods, three were T1sm cancer. Diagnostic accuracy of the miniprobe was lower than that of CE with respect to lesions located in the lower third of the stomach, differentiated histology, or massive submucosal invasion. Overall accuracy of the miniprobe and CE for T staging in EGC was approximately 80% with no significant difference. Accurate prediction of both techniques for submucosal invasion was poor, even by using a combination of the two methods. The use of the miniprobe may not increase the positive predictive value for T staging over the use of CE alone.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherSPRINGERko_KR
dc.subjectEndoscopic ultrasonographyko_KR
dc.subjectStagingko_KR
dc.subjectEarly gastric cancerko_KR
dc.subjectMiniprobeko_KR
dc.subjectEndoscopyko_KR
dc.titleIs endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection?ko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor최정민-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김상균-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor임종필-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김주성-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor정현채-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor송인성-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00464-010-1112-0-
dc.citation.journaltitleSURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES-
dc.description.citedreferenceKang HY, 2010, SURG ENDOSC, V24, P509, DOI 10.1007/s00464-009-0614-0-
dc.description.citedreferenceNam SY, 2009, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V21, P855, DOI 10.1097/MEG.0b013e328318ed42-
dc.description.citedreferenceChung IK, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V69, pAB112-
dc.description.citedreferenceAhn HS, 2009, J SURG ONCOL, V99, P20, DOI 10.1002/jso.21170-
dc.description.citedreferenceKwee RM, 2008, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V103, P1801, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01923.x-
dc.description.citedreferenceKim JH, 2007, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V66, P901, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2007.06.012-
dc.description.citedreferenceKwee RM, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, P2107, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5224-
dc.description.citedreferenceAKASHI K, 2006, INT J GASTROINT CANC, V37, P133-
dc.description.citedreferenceAxon A, 2005, ENDOSCOPY, V37, P570, DOI 10.1055/s-2005-861352-
dc.description.citedreferenceGOTODA T, 2005, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V3, pS71-
dc.description.citedreferenceIshigami S, 2004, HEPATO-GASTROENTEROL, V51, P1202-
dc.description.citedreferenceHunerbein M, 2004, SURG ENDOSC, V18, P601, DOI 10.1007/s00464-003-8925-z-
dc.description.citedreferenceHunerbein M, 2003, SURG ENDOSC, V17, P615, DOI 10.1007/s00464-002-8622-3-
dc.description.citedreferenceHizawa K, 2002, ENDOSCOPY, V34, P973-
dc.description.citedreferenceSABET EA, 2002, DIGEST ENDOSC, V14, P53-
dc.description.citedreferenceGOTODA T, 2000, GASTRIC CANCER, V3, P219-
dc.description.citedreferenceOhashi S, 1999, GUT, V45, P599-
dc.description.citedreferenceMenzel J, 1999, ENDOSCOPY, V31, P291-
dc.description.citedreferenceYanai H, 1999, GUT, V44, P361-
dc.description.citedreferenceAkahoshi K, 1998, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V48, P470-
dc.description.citedreference*ASS JGC, 1998, GASTRIC CANCER, V1, P10-
dc.description.citedreferenceYanai H, 1997, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V46, P212-
dc.description.citedreferenceYanai H, 1996, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V44, P29-
dc.description.citedreferenceSANO T, 1992, BRIT J SURG, V79, P241-
dc.description.citedreferenceMORI M, 1992, CANCER, V69, P306-
dc.description.citedreferenceDWYER AJ, 1991, RADIOLOGY, V178, P328-
dc.description.citedreferenceSANO T, 1990, DIGEST DIS SCI, V35, P1340-
dc.description.tc2-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share