基于随机对照试验的线性阵列内窥镜超声和窄带成像测量非截骨直肠病变的侵袭深度的准确性相当。

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
American Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-25 DOI:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002975
Lingzhi Li, Jiaming He, Haiyan Hu, Yingying Wang, Weixin Li, Shaohui Huang, Jahan Rownoak, Shenglin Xu, Fang Xie, Junfen Wang, Wenting Mi, Jianqun Cai, Yaping Ye, Side Liu, Jing Wang, Yue Li
{"title":"基于随机对照试验的线性阵列内窥镜超声和窄带成像测量非截骨直肠病变的侵袭深度的准确性相当。","authors":"Lingzhi Li, Jiaming He, Haiyan Hu, Yingying Wang, Weixin Li, Shaohui Huang, Jahan Rownoak, Shenglin Xu, Fang Xie, Junfen Wang, Wenting Mi, Jianqun Cai, Yaping Ye, Side Liu, Jing Wang, Yue Li","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000002975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Linear-array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) are both used to estimate the invasion depth of nonpedunculated rectal lesions (NPRLs). However, it is unclear which procedure is more accurate. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of linear EUS and NBI for estimating the invasion depth of NPRLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a single-center, randomized, tandem trial. Eligible patients with NPRLs were randomly assigned to A group (assessment with EUS followed by NBI) or B group (assessment with NBI followed by EUS). The invasion depth of each lesion was independently measured by each procedure and categorized as mucosal to slight submucosal (M-SM s , invasion depth <1,000 μm) or deep submucosal (SM d , invasion depth ≥1,000 μm) invasion, with postoperative pathology as the standard of measurement. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, and procedure time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six patients with NPRLs were enrolled, and 79 patients were finally analyzed, including 39 cases in the A group and 40 cases in the B group. Comparable diagnostic accuracies were observed between EUS and NBI (96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.625). EUS identified lesions with deep submucosal invasion with 81.8% sensitivity while that of NBI was 63.6% ( P = 0.500). The specificity of both EUS and NBI was 98.5%. The procedure time was also similar between EUS and NBI (5.90 ± 3.44 vs 6.4 ± 3.94 minutes, P = 0.450). Furthermore, the combined use of EUS and NBI did not improve diagnostic accuracy compared with EUS or NBI alone (94.9% vs 96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.333).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Linear EUS and NBI measure the invasion depth of NPRLs with comparable accuracy. The combination of the 2 methods does not improve the diagnostic accuracy. Single NBI should be preferred, considering its simplicity and convenience in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7608,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"562-569"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linear-Array Endoscopic Ultrasound and Narrow-Band Imaging Measure the Invasion Depth of Nonpedunculated Rectal Lesions With Comparable Accuracy Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Lingzhi Li, Jiaming He, Haiyan Hu, Yingying Wang, Weixin Li, Shaohui Huang, Jahan Rownoak, Shenglin Xu, Fang Xie, Junfen Wang, Wenting Mi, Jianqun Cai, Yaping Ye, Side Liu, Jing Wang, Yue Li\",\"doi\":\"10.14309/ajg.0000000000002975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Linear-array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) are both used to estimate the invasion depth of nonpedunculated rectal lesions (NPRLs). However, it is unclear which procedure is more accurate. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of linear EUS and NBI for estimating the invasion depth of NPRLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a single-center, randomized, tandem trial. Eligible patients with NPRLs were randomly assigned to A group (assessment with EUS followed by NBI) or B group (assessment with NBI followed by EUS). The invasion depth of each lesion was independently measured by each procedure and categorized as mucosal to slight submucosal (M-SM s , invasion depth <1,000 μm) or deep submucosal (SM d , invasion depth ≥1,000 μm) invasion, with postoperative pathology as the standard of measurement. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, and procedure time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six patients with NPRLs were enrolled, and 79 patients were finally analyzed, including 39 cases in the A group and 40 cases in the B group. Comparable diagnostic accuracies were observed between EUS and NBI (96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.625). EUS identified lesions with deep submucosal invasion with 81.8% sensitivity while that of NBI was 63.6% ( P = 0.500). The specificity of both EUS and NBI was 98.5%. The procedure time was also similar between EUS and NBI (5.90 ± 3.44 vs 6.4 ± 3.94 minutes, P = 0.450). Furthermore, the combined use of EUS and NBI did not improve diagnostic accuracy compared with EUS or NBI alone (94.9% vs 96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.333).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Linear EUS and NBI measure the invasion depth of NPRLs with comparable accuracy. The combination of the 2 methods does not improve the diagnostic accuracy. Single NBI should be preferred, considering its simplicity and convenience in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"562-569\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002975\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002975","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:线性阵列内镜超声(EUS)和窄带成像(NBI)均用于估测非截石位直肠病变(NPRL)的侵犯深度。然而,目前还不清楚哪种方法更准确。这项随机对照试验旨在比较线性 EUS 和 NBI 在估计 NPRLs 侵袭深度方面的诊断准确性:本研究是一项单中心、随机、串联试验。符合条件的 NPRLs 患者被随机分配到 A 组(评估 EUS 后进行 NBI)或 B 组(评估 NBI 后进行 EUS)。每种方法均独立测量每个病灶的侵袭深度,并将其分为粘膜至轻微粘膜下(M-SMs,侵袭深度结果):共登记了 86 例 NPRL 患者,最终分析了 79 例患者,其中 A 组 39 例,B 组 40 例。EUS 和 NBI 的诊断准确率相当(96.2% 对 93.7%,P = 0.625)。EUS 识别粘膜下深层侵犯病灶的灵敏度为 81.8%,而 NBI 为 63.6%(P = 0.500)。EUS 和 NBI 的特异性均为 98.5%。EUS 和 NBI 的手术时间也相似(5.90 ± 3.44 分钟 vs. 6.4 ± 3.94 分钟,P = 0.450)。此外,与单独使用 EUS 或 NBI 相比,联合使用 EUS 和 NBI 并未提高诊断准确性(94.9% vs 96.2% vs 93.7%,P = 0.333):线性 EUS 和 NBI 测量 NPRL 侵袭深度的准确性相当。结论:直线 EUS 和 NBI 测量 NPRL 侵袭深度的准确性相当,两种方法联合使用并不能提高诊断准确性。考虑到 NBI 在临床实践中的简便性,应首选单一 NBI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linear-Array Endoscopic Ultrasound and Narrow-Band Imaging Measure the Invasion Depth of Nonpedunculated Rectal Lesions With Comparable Accuracy Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Linear-array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) are both used to estimate the invasion depth of nonpedunculated rectal lesions (NPRLs). However, it is unclear which procedure is more accurate. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of linear EUS and NBI for estimating the invasion depth of NPRLs.

Methods: This study is a single-center, randomized, tandem trial. Eligible patients with NPRLs were randomly assigned to A group (assessment with EUS followed by NBI) or B group (assessment with NBI followed by EUS). The invasion depth of each lesion was independently measured by each procedure and categorized as mucosal to slight submucosal (M-SM s , invasion depth <1,000 μm) or deep submucosal (SM d , invasion depth ≥1,000 μm) invasion, with postoperative pathology as the standard of measurement. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, and procedure time.

Results: Eighty-six patients with NPRLs were enrolled, and 79 patients were finally analyzed, including 39 cases in the A group and 40 cases in the B group. Comparable diagnostic accuracies were observed between EUS and NBI (96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.625). EUS identified lesions with deep submucosal invasion with 81.8% sensitivity while that of NBI was 63.6% ( P = 0.500). The specificity of both EUS and NBI was 98.5%. The procedure time was also similar between EUS and NBI (5.90 ± 3.44 vs 6.4 ± 3.94 minutes, P = 0.450). Furthermore, the combined use of EUS and NBI did not improve diagnostic accuracy compared with EUS or NBI alone (94.9% vs 96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.333).

Discussion: Linear EUS and NBI measure the invasion depth of NPRLs with comparable accuracy. The combination of the 2 methods does not improve the diagnostic accuracy. Single NBI should be preferred, considering its simplicity and convenience in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Gastroenterology
American Journal of Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) stands as the foremost clinical journal in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. AJG offers practical and professional support to clinicians addressing the most prevalent gastroenterological disorders in patients.
×
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