Value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for evaluating the invasion depth of type 0–II early gastric cancer

Background and Aim The microsurface structure reflects the degree of damage to the glands, which is related to the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. To evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for estimating the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. Metho...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JGH Open 2024-04, Vol.8 (4), p.e13055-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Jiang, Zhang‐Xiu, Liang, Yun‐Xiao, Huang, Peng‐Yu, Ning, Jia‐Juan, Qi, Jing‐Jing
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and Aim The microsurface structure reflects the degree of damage to the glands, which is related to the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. To evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for estimating the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. Methods White‐light imaging and narrow‐band imaging (NBI) endoscopy were used to visualize the lesions of the included patients. The area ratio and depth‐predicting score (DPS) of each patient were calculated; meanwhile, each lesion was examined by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Results Ninety‐three patients were included between 2016 and 2019. Microsurface structure is related to the histological differentiation and progression of early gastric cancer. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that when an area ratio of 80.3% was used as a cut‐off value for distinguishing mucosal (M) and submucosal (SM) type 0–II gastric cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 82.9%, 80.2%, and 91.6%, respectively. The accuracies for distinguishing M/SM differentiated and undifferentiated early gastric cancers were 87.4% and 84.8%, respectively. The accuracy of EUS for distinguishing M/SM early gastric cancer was 74.9%. DPS can only distinguish M‐SM1 (SM infiltration
ISSN:2397-9070
2397-9070
DOI:10.1002/jgh3.13055