Is endoscopic ultrasonography still the modality of choice in preoperative staging of gastric cancer?

Table 1 Summarized results of endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative T staging¹

Ref.	Year	Number of studies (n)	Stage	Accuracy (pooled, %)	Sensitivity (pooled, %)	Specificity (pooled, %)
Kwee et al[14]	2007	23	overall T	265-92.1	-	-
Puli et al[23]	2008	22	T1	-	88.1	100.0
			T2	-	82.3	95.6
			T3	-	89.7	94.7
			T4	-	99.2	96.7
Mocellin et al[24]	2011	54	T1-2 vs T3-4	-	86.0	91.0
			T1	-	83.0	96.0
			T2	-	65.0	91.0
			T3	-	86.0	85.0
			T4	-	66.0	98.0
Cardoso et al[25]	2012	22	Overall T	75 (256.9-87.7)	-	-
			T1	77 (214-100)	-	-
			T2	65 (224-90)	-	-
			T3	85 (250-100)	-	-
			T4	79 (222-100)	-	-

¹Based on meta-analyses and systematic reviews;

²Range value.

Table 2 Summarized results of endoscopic ultrasonography in preoperative N staging¹

Ref.	Year	Number of studies (n)	Stage	Accuracy (pooled, %)	Sensitivity (pooled, %)	Specificity (pooled, %)
Puli et al[23]	2008	22	N1	-	58.2	87.2
			N2	-	64.9	92.4
Kwee et al[15]	2009	30	N	-	16.7-98.82	48.4-1002
Mocellin et al[24]	2011	48	N	-	69.0	84.0
Cardoso et al[25]	2012	22	N	64 (230-90)	74 (216.6-96.8)	80 (57.1-100)2

¹Based on meta-analyses and systematic reviews;

²Range value.

Table 3 Summarized results of multi-detector row computed tomography in preoperative TNM staging¹

Ref.	Year	Number of studies (n)	Stage	Accuracy (pooled, %)	Sensitivity (pooled, %)	Specificity (pooled, %)
Kwee et al[14,15]	2007	6	Overall T	277.1-88.9	-	-
	2009	10	N	-	262.5-91.9	250.0-87.9
Seevaratnam et al[19]	2012	32	Overall T	80.4	-	-
			T1	75.2	-	-
			T2	80.0	-	-
			T3	84.5	-	-
			T4	78.8	-	-
			N	67.1	75.8	78.8
			M	82.2	-	-

¹Based on meta-analyses and systematic reviews;

²Range value.

Table 4 Performance of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative T and N staging

Ref.	Year	Number of patients (n)	Stage	Accuracy (%)	Overstaging (%)	Understaging (%)
Sohn et al[53]	2000	30	Overall T	73.3	6.7	20
			N	55.2	10.3	34.5
Kang et al[51]	2000	46	Overall T	82.6	2.2	15.2
			N	52.2	17.4	30.4
Wang et al[54]	2000	33	Overall T	87.9	6	6
Kim et al[52]	2000	26 (AGC)	Overall T	80.7	19.2	0
			N	65.4	0	34.6
Zhong et al[55]	2005	16	Overall T	64.3	14.3	21.4
Arocena et al[21]	2006	17	Overall T	53	23.5	23.5
			N	50	25	25

Table 5 Performance of positron emission tomography in preoperative N staging

Ref.	Year	Number of patients (n)	Staging	Accuracy (%)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Mochiki et al[60]	2004	85	N	-	23.3	100
Tian et al[63]	2004	30	N	73.3	52.9	100
Chen et al[61]	2005	68	L-LN	63	56	92
			D-LN	95	88	96
Yun et al[69]	2005	81	N1	56	34	96
			N2	72	34	96
			N3	95	50	99
Kim et al[62]	2006	73	N	-	40	95.2
Mukai et al[70]	2006	62	N	67.7	34.5	97
Yang et al[64] (PET/CT)	2008	78	N	55.1	31	97.2