Japanese journal of radiology · 2021
Is barium enema examination negligible for the management of colorectal cancer? Comparison with conventional colonoscopy and magnifying colonoscopy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kawasaki Keisuke, Nakamura Shotaro, Eizuka Makoto, Tanaka Yoshihito, Kumei Tomo, Yanai Shunichi, Toya Yosuke, Urushikubo Jun, Torisu Takehiro, Moriyama Tomohiko, Umeno Junji, Sugai Tamotsu, Matsumoto Takayuki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the clinical value of barium enema (BE) examination for the management of colorectal epithelial neoplasms.
METHODS: We reviewed the colonoscopy records at our institution from 2014 to 2019 and identified cases of endoscopically or surgically resected colorectal epithelial neoplasms evaluated by BE, conventional colonoscopy, magnifying narrow-band imaging colonoscopy (M-NBI), and magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE). The yield of each modality for the diagnosis of massively submucosal invasive (mSM) colorectal cancer was evaluated by a receiver-operating characteristic analysis including the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: We analyzed the records of 105 patients (17 adenomas, 53 high-grade dysplasias (HGDs), and 35 cancers). Smooth surface, irregularity in depression, and eccentric deformity on the profile view with BE were observed more frequently in mSM cancers than adenomas/HGDs/slightly submucosal invasive cancers (p < 0.01). The AUC of BE was 0.8355, the value of which was not different from the other three modalities (conventional colonoscopy 0.7678; M-NBI 0.7835; MCE 0.8376). Although the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of BE were lower than those of M-NBI and MCE, the sensitivity and NPV of BE were the highest among the four types of examinations.
CONCLUSION: BE is still available and may serve as a supplementary modality for the diagnosis of mSM cancers.
METHODS: We reviewed the colonoscopy records at our institution from 2014 to 2019 and identified cases of endoscopically or surgically resected colorectal epithelial neoplasms evaluated by BE, conventional colonoscopy, magnifying narrow-band imaging colonoscopy (M-NBI), and magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE). The yield of each modality for the diagnosis of massively submucosal invasive (mSM) colorectal cancer was evaluated by a receiver-operating characteristic analysis including the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: We analyzed the records of 105 patients (17 adenomas, 53 high-grade dysplasias (HGDs), and 35 cancers). Smooth surface, irregularity in depression, and eccentric deformity on the profile view with BE were observed more frequently in mSM cancers than adenomas/HGDs/slightly submucosal invasive cancers (p < 0.01). The AUC of BE was 0.8355, the value of which was not different from the other three modalities (conventional colonoscopy 0.7678; M-NBI 0.7835; MCE 0.8376). Although the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of BE were lower than those of M-NBI and MCE, the sensitivity and NPV of BE were the highest among the four types of examinations.
CONCLUSION: BE is still available and may serve as a supplementary modality for the diagnosis of mSM cancers.