The simplified depth-predicting score outperforms the depth-predicting score for predicting the depth of invasion in differentiated early gastric cancer patients among nonexpert endoscopists.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Lulu Zeng, Hui Li, Tian Huang, Yuting Heng, Jun Liu, Xiangpeng Hu
{"title":"The simplified depth-predicting score outperforms the depth-predicting score for predicting the depth of invasion in differentiated early gastric cancer patients among nonexpert endoscopists.","authors":"Lulu Zeng, Hui Li, Tian Huang, Yuting Heng, Jun Liu, Xiangpeng Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Endoscopists utilize depth-predicting score (DPS) and simplified depth-predicting score (S-DPS) to predict the invasion depth of early gastric cancer based on conventional white-light endoscopic features. The effectiveness of these scores has not been fully elucidated among nonexpert endoscopists. This study aimed to compare the ability of DPS and S-DPS to predict invasion depth of differentiated early gastric cancers by nonexpert endoscopists.</p><p><strong>Participants and methods: </strong>We collected subitem scores of DPS and S-DPS from 19 nonexpert endoscopists for early gastric cancer conventional white-light endoscopy images in the test dataset to predict the invasion depth of the early gastric cancer conventional white-light endoscopy images. Accuracy, specificity, overdiagnosis rate, and underdiagnosis rate were subsequently calculated using the histological invasion depth as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using 3 as the cutoff line, the overall S-DPS diagnostic accuracy for invasion depth was significantly greater than that of DPS [73.86% (69.32%, 75.00%) vs. 67.05% (62.50%, 71.59%), p=0.005]. The overall S-DPS overdiagnosis rate was significantly lower than that of DPS [7.58% (3.03%, 13.64%) vs. 28.79% (18.18%, 37.88%), p=0.000]. The overall S-DPS under-diagnosed rate was significantly higher than that of DPS [86.36% (68.18%, 90.91%) vs. 45.45% (31.82%, 59.09%), p=0.000]. The specificity of the S-DPS was significantly greater than that of DPS [92.42% (86.36%, 96.97%) vs. 71.21% (62.12%, 81.82%), p=0.000].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diagnostic accuracy of the S-DPS was greater than that of the DPS among nonexpert endoscopists. Furthermore, S-DPS is simpler than other methods, making it more conducive to clinical application for nonexpert endoscopists.</p>","PeriodicalId":12802,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterologia y hepatologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterologia y hepatologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Endoscopists utilize depth-predicting score (DPS) and simplified depth-predicting score (S-DPS) to predict the invasion depth of early gastric cancer based on conventional white-light endoscopic features. The effectiveness of these scores has not been fully elucidated among nonexpert endoscopists. This study aimed to compare the ability of DPS and S-DPS to predict invasion depth of differentiated early gastric cancers by nonexpert endoscopists.

Participants and methods: We collected subitem scores of DPS and S-DPS from 19 nonexpert endoscopists for early gastric cancer conventional white-light endoscopy images in the test dataset to predict the invasion depth of the early gastric cancer conventional white-light endoscopy images. Accuracy, specificity, overdiagnosis rate, and underdiagnosis rate were subsequently calculated using the histological invasion depth as the gold standard.

Results: Using 3 as the cutoff line, the overall S-DPS diagnostic accuracy for invasion depth was significantly greater than that of DPS [73.86% (69.32%, 75.00%) vs. 67.05% (62.50%, 71.59%), p=0.005]. The overall S-DPS overdiagnosis rate was significantly lower than that of DPS [7.58% (3.03%, 13.64%) vs. 28.79% (18.18%, 37.88%), p=0.000]. The overall S-DPS under-diagnosed rate was significantly higher than that of DPS [86.36% (68.18%, 90.91%) vs. 45.45% (31.82%, 59.09%), p=0.000]. The specificity of the S-DPS was significantly greater than that of DPS [92.42% (86.36%, 96.97%) vs. 71.21% (62.12%, 81.82%), p=0.000].

Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of the S-DPS was greater than that of the DPS among nonexpert endoscopists. Furthermore, S-DPS is simpler than other methods, making it more conducive to clinical application for nonexpert endoscopists.

在预测分化型早期胃癌患者的侵犯深度方面,简化深度预测评分优于非专业内镜医师的深度预测评分。
目的:内镜医师利用深度预测评分(DPS)和简化深度预测评分(S-DPS),根据传统的白光内镜特征预测早期胃癌的侵犯深度。这些评分在非专业内镜医师中的有效性尚未得到充分阐明。本研究旨在比较 DPS 和 S-DPS 对非专业内镜医师预测分化型早期胃癌浸润深度的能力:我们收集了19位非专家内镜医师对测试数据集中的早期胃癌常规白光内镜图像进行的DPS和S-DPS分项评分,以预测早期胃癌常规白光内镜图像的浸润深度。随后以组织学浸润深度为金标准计算了准确率、特异性、高诊断率和低诊断率:结果:以 3 为分界线,S-DPS 对浸润深度的总体诊断准确率明显高于 DPS [73.86% (69.32%, 75.00%) vs. 67.05% (62.50%, 71.60%), p=0.005]。S-DPS 的总体过度诊断率明显低于 DPS [7.58% (3.03%, 13.64%) vs. 28.79% (18.18%, 37.88%),P= 0.000]。S-DPS 的总体诊断不足率明显高于 DPS [86.36% (68.18%, 90.91%) vs. 45.45% (31.82%, 59.09%),P=0.000]。S-DPS 的特异性明显高于 DPS [92.42% (86.36%, 96.97%) vs. 71.21% (62.12%, 81.82%),P= 0.000]:结论:在非专业内镜医师中,S-DPS 的诊断准确性高于 DPS。此外,S-DPS 比其他方法更简单,更有利于非专业内镜医师的临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gastroenterologia y hepatologia
Gastroenterologia y hepatologia GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
147
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology and Hepatology is the first journal to cover the latest advances in pathology of the gastrointestinal tract, liver, pancreas, and bile ducts, making it an indispensable tool for gastroenterologists, hepatologists, internists and general practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信