3.8 Article

How commonly is upper gastrointestinal cancer missed at endoscopy? A meta-analysis

Journal

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages E46-E50

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365524

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and study aims: Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer in the Western world usually presents at an advanced stage, when opportunities for curative therapy are limited. The failure to detect subtle, early-stage UGI cancer at endoscopy may contribute to a poor prognosis. We undertook a meta-analysis of studies of endoscopic miss rates for UGI cancer to quantify how often opportunities to diagnose cancer at an earlier stage are missed. Patients and methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify relevant studies, and a meta-analysis was conducted. Missed UGI cancer was defined as cancer that had not been diagnosed by UGI endoscopy performed within 3 years before the diagnosis. Random effects meta-analysis was used to determine the event rate of missed UGI cancer. Results: Ten studies were identified that included 3,787 patients with UGI cancer. Four hundred eighty-seven UGI cancers were missed at endoscopy within 3 years before diagnosis. Marked heterogeneity was observed between studies (I-2, 94.4 %; P<0.001). On random effects meta-analysis, the pooled miss rates were 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3%-9.5 %) within 1 year and 11.3% (95% CI, 7.5%-16.6 %) within 3 years before diagnosis. There appeared to be no difference between the miss rates of oesophageal (44 %) and gastric (51 %) cancer (P=0.42). Conclusion It appears that 11.3% of UGI cancers are missed at endoscopy up to 3 years before diagnosis. To ameliorate the poor prognosis of patients with UGI cancer in the Western world, efforts should be made to improve the quality of UGI endoscopy and create opportunities for earlier diagnosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available