scholarly journals Association between Endoscopist Specialty and Colonoscopy Quality: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nauzer Forbes ◽  
Matthew Mazurek ◽  
Alistair Murray ◽  
Yibing Ruan ◽  
Robert J Hilsden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Colonoscopy is an important modality in the provision of colorectal cancer screening. Though effective and safe, the performance of screening-related colonoscopy is variable in terms of its overall quality, with endoscopist-related factors playing an important role in this variation. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the association between endoscopist specialty and colonoscopy quality and outcomes. Methods A comprehensive electronic search will be carried out to determine the association between endoscopist specialty and colonoscopy quality metrics and/or outcomes in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. Two abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess study quality, and abstract study data. The primary outcome will be the adenoma detection rate (ADR); secondary outcomes will include cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time (WT), adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Rates of the above metrics and outcomes will also be compared between clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird models will be used to perform meta-analyses for each outcome. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression analyses, if possible. Discussion Given the significant established variation in colonoscopy quality, endoscopist-related factors need to be explored. Our meta-analysis will address the important question of whether the specialty of the endoscopist impacts colonoscopy quality and/or outcomes. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42021226251.

scholarly journals Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1321-E1331
Author(s):  
Natalia S. Causada-Calo ◽  
Emmanuel I. Gonzalez-Moreno ◽  
Kirles Bishay ◽  
Risa Shorr ◽  
Catherine Dube ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Improvement Programs ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background and study aims The quality of screening-related colonoscopy depends on several physician- and patient-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies considerably between endoscopists. Educational interventions aim to improve endoscopists’ ADRs, but their overall impact is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether there is an association between educational interventions and colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods A comprehensive search was performed through August 2019 for studies reporting any associations between educational interventions and any colonoscopy quality indicators. Our primary outcome of interest was ADR. Two authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. Risk of bias was also assessed for included studies. Pooled rate ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results From 2,253 initial studies, eight were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 86,008 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in overall ADR (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.25 to 1.42, 95 % prediction interval 1.09 to 1.53) and proximal ADR (RR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.29 to 1.48), with borderline increases in withdrawal time, ([WT], mean difference 0.29 minutes, 95 % CI – 0.12 to 0.70 minutes). Educational interventions did not affect cecal intubation rate ([CIR], RR 1.01, 95 % CI 1.00 to 1.01). Heterogeneity was considerable across many of the analyses. Conclusions Educational interventions are associated with significant improvements in ADR, in particular, proximal ADR, and are not associated with improvements in WT or CIR. Educational interventions should be considered an important option in quality improvement programs aiming to optimize the performance of screening-related colonoscopy.

scholarly journals A147 ENDOSCOPIST FEEDBACK IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
K Bishay ◽  
N Calo ◽  
M A Scaffidi ◽  
C M Walsh ◽  
J Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. Endosocpist feedback may be associated with improvements in ADR and other quality indicators. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether an association exists between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods An electronic and manual search was conducted through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Studies primarily assessing the effect of audit and feedback on trainees and studies that included interventions other then feedback were excluded from the analysis. Pooled rate ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. Results Of 1,326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.09 to 1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23) compared to moderate performers (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29), while high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (WMD +0.43 minutes, 95% CI -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Conclusions Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. Routine audit and feedback may be a feasible strategy to optimize outcomes in screening colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals A142 ENDOSCOPIST EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN ADENOMA DETECTION RATE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
E González Moreno ◽  
K Bishay ◽  
N Calo ◽  
M A Scaffidi ◽  
S C Grover ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Screening-related colonoscopy reduces the overall morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal cancer. In order for screening-related colonoscopy to be effective and safe, endoscopists must be well trained. However, a significant degree of variation exists between endoscopists in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). ADR in particular is an important colonoscopy quality metric that has been directly and inversely related to the rate of post colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Educational interventions aimed at endoscopists have been developed in an attempt to optimize the performance of colonoscopy. It is unknown what benefit these have on colonoscopy quality indicators or outcomes, if any. Aims We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether there is an association between educational interventions aimed at endoscopists and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators or outcomes. Methods An electronic search was conducted through August 2019 for studies reporting on targeted endoscopist educational interventions and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators, or outcomes. Interventions such as hands-on training modules, skills enhancement courses were included Pooled rate ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with any of the outcomes of interest. Results From 2,253 initial studies, 14 were included in the systematic review, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 76,373 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in ADR (RR 1.28, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.19–1.38). Educational interventions were also associated with improvements in overall polyp detection rate, PDR (RR 1.17, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.02–1.35). Educational interventions were not associated with longer withdrawal times (WMD -0.03 minutes, 95% CI, -0.57 - 0.51) or improved CIR (RR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02), though unadjusted CIR was high in both the pre- and post-intervention groups, at 94.5% and 95.0%, respectively. Figure 1 shows Forest plots comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention rates for A) ADR, b) PDR and c) CIR. Conclusions Our study provides evidence that educational interventions aimed at endoscopists significantly improve ADR and overall PDR. Educational interventions did not impact withdrawal time or cecal intubation rates, and thus, the specific mechanisms for their benefit remain incompletely clear. As part of quality improvement programs to optimize colonoscopy performance, educational interventions should be considered. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Effect of dynamic position changes on adenoma detection rate during colonoscope withdrawal: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (12) ◽  
pp. E1842-E1849
Author(s):  
Venkat Nutalapati ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Vivek Sandeep Thoguluva-Chandrasekar ◽  
Mojtaba Olyaee ◽  
Amit Rastogi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lateral Position ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Position Change ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Left Lateral Position ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Withdrawal Phase

Abstract Background and study aims The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric of colonoscopy. Higher ADR correlates with lower incidence of interval colorectal cancer. ADR is variable between endoscopists and depends upon the withdrawal technique amongst other factors. Dynamic position change (lateral rotation of patients with a view to keep the portion of the colon being inspected at a higher level) helps with luminal distension during the withdrawal phase. However, impact of this on ADR is not known in a pooled sample. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the impact of dynamic position changes during withdrawal phase of colonoscopy on ADR Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database was conducted from each database’s inception to search for studies comparing dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal with static left lateral position (control). The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Other studied outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and withdrawal time. Outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) with statistical significance (P < 0.05). RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results Six studies were included in our analysis with 2860 patients. Of these, dynamic position change was implemented in 1177 patients while 1183 patients served as the controls. ADR was significantly higher in the dynamic position change group with pooled OR 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.15–1.61; P < 0.01). There was low heterogeneity in inclusion studies (I2 = 0 %). PDR was numerically higher in position change group (53.4 % vs 49.6 %) but not statistically significant (P = 0.16). Mean withdrawal time did not significantly change with dynamic position change (12.43 min vs 11.46 min, P = 0.27). Conclusion Position change during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy can increase the ADR compared to static left lateral position. This is an easy and practical technique that can be implemented to improve ADR.

scholarly journals A65 ENDOSCOPIST-TARGETED INTERVENTIONS TO OPTIMIZE ADENOMA DETECTION RATE - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
A Arora ◽  
C McDonald ◽  
A Iansavitchene ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
M Sey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Report Card ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Abstract Background Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as the strongest quality assurance metric that has consistently been shown to be inversely associated with the development of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy. Unfortunately, marked variability in ADR exists among endoscopists. A multitude of interventions targeted at endoscopists to optimize their ADR have been reported, including but not limited to withdrawal time, in room observers, physician report cards, and quality improvement and training programs. However, it is unclear which of them are truly effective. Aims We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopist-targeted interventions to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR). Methods Systematic searches of major databases were conducted through to March 2018 to identify potentially relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Data for ADR and PDR were analyzed on the log-odds scale using a random-effects meta-analysis model using restricted maximum likelihood (with Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis used for fewer than 4 studies). Statistical effect-size heterogeneity was assessed using a Chi2 test and quantifying the relative proportion of variation using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed by the Harbord regression test. Results From 4299 initial studies, 24 were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the meta-analysis representing a total of 55,090 colonoscopies. Physician report card interventions (7 studies) and withdrawal time focused interventions (6 studies) were meta-analyzed. The pooled odds ratio for ADR for report card interventions was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.50; p&lt;0.0001), favoring report cards to detect more adenomas. Statistical heterogeneity was detected with substantial relative effect-size variability (Chi2, p&lt;0.0001; I2=80.1%). No statistical evidence of publication bias was found. 6 studies reported data for PDR using withdrawal time focused interventions, with 3 of these reporting data on ADR. The pooled odds ratio for ADR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.22; p=0.81) and for PDR was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.31; p=0.51) which were not statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity was detected in both groups (Chi2, p&lt;0.001; I2=82.2% for ADR and I2=89.4% for PDR) and there was statistical evidence of publication bias. Figures 1 and 2 represent Forest plots for the effect of pre-and post-report card and withdrawal time focused interventions on ADR. Conclusions Our study provides evidence that the distribution of colonoscopy quality report cards to physicians significantly improves overall ADR and should strongly be considered as part of quality improvement programs aimed at optimizing colonoscopy performance. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Compliance With Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Individual Participant Data Statement for Meta-Analyses Published for Stroke Studies

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fareed Jumah ◽  
Silky Chotai ◽  
Omar Ashraf ◽  
Michael S. Rallo ◽  
Bharath Raju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background and Purpose: Individual-participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MA) are powerful evidence synthesis studies which are considered the gold-standard of MA. The quality of reporting in these studies is guided by the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) guidelines. The growing number of IPD-MA published for stroke studies calls for an assessment of the compliance of these studies with the PRISMA-IPD statement. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for MA in stroke published between January 1, 2016, and March 30, 2020, in journals with impact factor >2. Literature reviews, scoping reviews, and aggregate MA were excluded. The final articles were scored using the 31-item PRISMA-IPD checklist. Results were depicted using descriptive statistics. Compliance with each item in PRISM-IPD guideline was recorded. The study was defined as compliant to IPD analyses if it satisfied all IPD specific items. Results: From an initial set of 321 articles, 31 met the final eligibility for data extraction. Only 4 (13%) described the use of PRISMA-IPD guidelines in their methodology, while 8/31 (26%) used the old PRISMA guidelines and 19/31 (61%) followed none. Regardless of mention of using IPD specific guidelines, 42% (n=13) of studies were compliant with all 4 IPD specific domains. The poorest areas of compliance were bias assessment within (32%) and across (39%) studies, reporting protocol and registration (42%), and reporting of IPD integrity (48%). The median journal impact factor was similar between the compliant (median, 8.1 [interquartile range, 5.4–39.9]) and noncompliant (median, 6 [interquartile range, 4.5–16.2]) groups ( P =0.24). Similarly, the journal, country of correspondence, number of authors, number of studies included in MA, study sample size, and funding source were statistically similar between the groups. Conclusions: For the published IPD-MA stroke studies, the compliance with PRISMA-IPD statement and compliance with 4 IPD specific items was suboptimal. The journal, author, and study-related factors were not associated with compliance. Additional scrutiny measures to ensure adherence to mandated guidelines might increase the compliance. Several avenues to improve compliance and ensure optimal adherence are discussed.

scholarly journals Single-Incision vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Yuan ◽  
Jianing Jian ◽  
Hailiang Jing ◽  
Ran Yan ◽  
Fengming You ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Abdominal Incision ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Although the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery have been reported in several meta-analyses, the low quality of studies included in the meta-analyses limits the reliability of such a conclusion. In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of SILS in colorectal cancer has been on the rise. This update systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILS and CLS in the patients with colorectal cancer.Methods: Relevant data was searched on the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until February 5th, 2021. All RCTs comparing SILS and CLS were included. The main outcomes were 30 days of mortality, postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes removed, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, abdominal incision length, reoperation, readmission, conversion to laparotomy, operation time and anastomotic leakage.Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1,133 participants. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the 30 days mortality rate. The results showed that SILS group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49–0.92), higher rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.00–5.10), shorter length of abdominal incision (MD = −2.01, 95% CI:−2.42–1.61) (cm), longer operation time (MD = 11.90, 95% CI: 5.37–18.43) (minutes), shorter hospital stay (MD = −1.12, 95% CI: −1.89–0.34) (days) compared with CLS group. However, intraoperative blood loss (MD = −8.23, 95% CI: −16.75–0.29) (mL), number of lymph nodes removed (MD = −0.17, 95% CI: −0.79–0.45), conversion to laparotomy (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.48–3.60), reoperation (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.30–3.33) and readmission (RR =1.15, 95% CI: 0.12–10.83) and anastomotic leakage were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusion: These results indicate that SILS did not has a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. Surgeons and patients should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the two surgical procedures. Further RCTs are needed to prove long-term outcomes of SILS in colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals Impact of real-time use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. E513-E521
Author(s):  
Munish Ashat ◽  
Jagpal Singh Klair ◽  
Dhruv Singh ◽  
Arvind Rangarajan Murali ◽  
Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and study aims With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55–2.00; I2 = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68–2.15, I2 = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00–0.92) minutes, I2 = 94 %). Conclusions There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.

scholarly journals SP1.2.13Prediction of malignant progression of colorectal adenomatous polyps – A complete systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiran Altaf ◽  
Sukhpreet Gahunia ◽  
Sarah Zhao ◽  
Shakil Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P53 Mutation ◽  
Malignant Progression ◽  
Colorectal Adenomas ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Surveillance Programme ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Aims Only 5% of colorectal adenomas (CA) progress to cancer. Identifying these is highly relevant for colorectal cancer screening risk. Currently, no biomarkers exist that predict this malignant progression. We looked at the effectiveness of common genetic aberrations as potential biomarkers through systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to identify all studies that assessed p53, APC, p21, BRAF, MLH1, MSH2, CIMP and Kras mutations as prognostic markers in CA. Main outcome measure was the development of colorectal cancer. Results 109 clinical studies were included. P53 mutation [DOR 8.37 (5.21-13.42), sensitivity 55% (52-58%), specificity 85% (83-87%), PLR 4.23 (2.60-6.88), NLR 0.57 (0.57-0.64), AUC 0.7532] was found to be superior to all other mutations. Mutations of APC [DOR 0.57 (0.16-2.01), sensitivity 19% (4-25%), specificity 71% (66-76%), PLR 0.71 (0.33-1.54), NLR 1.19 (0.84-1.69)], BRAF [DOR 0.38 (0.22-0.67), sensitivity 12% (11-14%), specificity 60% (58-62%), PLR 0.57 (0.38-0.84), NLR 1.27 (1.12-1.44)], Kras [DOR 1.22 (0.72-2.0), sensitivity 33% (30-37%), specificity 74% (71-76%), PLR 1.17 (0.81-1.68), NLR 0.94 (0.83-1.07)], MLH1 [DOR 2.48 (1.05-5.84), sensitivity 26% (23-30%), specificity 82% (79-84%), PLR 1.74 (0.95-3.19)], MSH2 [DOR 1.06 (0.53-2.13), sensitivity 22% (17-27%), specificity 88% (84-90%), PLR 1.03 (0.62-1.70), NLR 0.99 (0.91-1.07)] and CIMP [DOR 1.88 (0.25-13.88), sensitivity 30% (23-36%), specificity 76% (72-80%), PLR 1.31 (0.29-5.99), NLR 0.76 (0.40-1.45)] failed to demonstrate any advantage over p53. Conclusions p53 mutations effectively predict malignant progression in CA. Panel of biomarkers would be more suited for surveillance programme. This needs confirmation in prospective clinical trials with cost-efficiency analyses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document