Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
  1. Home
  3. You Get What You Expect? A Critical Appraisal Of Imaging Methodology In Endosonographic Cancer Staging.
  1. Home
  3. You Get What You Expect? A Critical Appraisal Of Imaging Methodology In Endosonographic Cancer Staging.

Related Concept Videos

JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

You get what you expect? A critical appraisal of imaging methodology in endosonographic cancer staging.

A Meining1, H J Dittler, A Wolf

  • 1Department of Internal Medicine II, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Germany.

Gut
|April 16, 2002

View abstract on PubMed

Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) accuracy for cancer staging decreases when examiners are blinded. Adding information improved blinded EUS staging results, suggesting routine clinical EUS benefits from extra data.

Related Experiment Videos

Area of Science:

  • Gastroenterology
  • Oncology
  • Medical Imaging

Background:

  • Imaging procedure accuracy often declines post-introduction.
  • Methodological factors can influence research findings.
  • Blinding of examiners is a potential factor affecting accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of examiner blinding on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) accuracy for T staging.
  • To identify if additional information improves blinded EUS performance.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of 101 EUS videotapes from patients with resected esophageal, gastric, or pancreatic tumors.
  • Evaluations included routine clinical conditions, strictly blinded fashion, and unblinded with additional data (video appearance or CT).
  • Histopathology served as the reference for T staging.

Main Results:

  • EUS T staging accuracy was 73% (routine), 53% (blinded), and 62% (unblinded with added info).
  • Blinded EUS significantly reduced accuracy compared to routine and unblinded evaluations.
  • Sensitivity for T1/T2 tumors was 72% (routine), 59% (blinded), 70% (unblinded); for advanced tumors, it was 85% (routine), 74% (blinded), 72% (unblinded).

Conclusions:

  • EUS T staging accuracy in clinical practice may be lower than reported.
  • Blinded analysis yielded significantly poorer results, which improved with supplementary information.
  • Routine EUS accuracy may be enhanced by additional contextual information.