Imaging Combo May Diagnose Gastric Cancer Without Biopsy

CHICAGO – The combination of white light endoscopy and magnifying narrow-band imaging shows promise for achieving accurate diagnosis of early gastric cancer, based on a prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Japan.

"Magnifying narrow-band imaging improved [the] diagnostic performance of white light endoscopy for discriminating gastric cancer from benign small depressed lesions," said Dr. Noriya Uedo, the principal investigator. "Adding magnifying narrow-band imaging to white light endoscopy could make accurate diagnosis of early gastric cancer [possible] without biopsy."

Currently, a diagnosis is made primarily via biopsy, said Dr. Uedo at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Narrow-band imaging (NBI) is a novel optical technology for examining the surface structure and vascular architecture in the superficial mucosa. "Using magnifying endoscopy, it enables us to evaluate detailed morphological features of both epithelium and vasculature corresponding to histology," he said.

This study was designed to compare the real-time diagnostic performance of conventional white light endoscopy vs. magnifying NBI for gastric lesions no larger than 1 cm.

The trial included patients with a history of endoscopic treatment of early gastric cancer who were at high risk for developing recurrent gastric cancer. The study’s primary objective was to contrast the diagnostic accuracy of the two modalities.

On enrollment, patients were screened with white light endoscopy, and those who were found to have a previously undiagnosed small depressed lesion were randomized to either the white light group or the magnifying NBI group. In the white light group, after the endoscopic finding was documented, the lesion was then evaluated with magnifying NBI.

Between June 2008 and May 2010, 1,365 patients were enrolled, and 362 were found to have small depressed lesions. These patients were randomized to the white light endoscopy group or the magnifying narrow-band imaging group. There were 20 patients with gastric carcinoma in each group.

Specificity And Sensitivity - News


Imaging Combo May Diagnose Gastric Cancer Without Biopsy

Sensitivity was also higher in the magnifying NBI group at 60% (12 of 20) vs. 40% (8 of 20), but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Specificity was significantly higher in the magnifying NBI group at 94% (148 of 157), compared with



Insufficient Evidence for Pretesting TPMT Status
Insufficient Evidence for Pretesting TPMT Status

Ronald A. Booth, Ph.D., from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and colleagues reviewed available literature to assess the sensitivity and specificity of TPMT genotyping for TPMT enzymatic activity, pretesting to reduce harm from thiopurine



bioMérieux Launches Groundbreaking Salmonella Detection Technology to Improve ...

This new food safety solution utilizes recombinant bacteriophage (phage) proteins, which offer best-in-class specificity and sensitivity for the targeted capture and detection of Salmonella bacteria in food and environmental samples.



Novel Biomarker for Incipient Alzheimer's Promising

Baseline Cerebrospinal Fluid Concentrations of Soluble APP-β by Group The combination of sAPP-β, tau, and age differentiated subjects who did and did not progress to AD with 80% sensitivity and 81% specificity. The best model for the differentiation of



Rules Identify Which Chest Pain Patients Can Be Sent Home

The validation cohort identified 118 of 119 patients with ACS, for a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI, 95.4-100), and 184 out of 787 patients who could be discharged, for a specificity of 23.4% (95% CI, 20.6-26.5). Prior studies that have tried to develop




Language Impairment Eligibility: Which test should I use ...

The current language eligibility guidelines provided by TSHA, and many districts across the state, consider students with a language disorder eligible for Speech Language Pathology services in the schools when their standard scores on a language battery fall 1.5 standard deviations below the mean.  This is consistent with eligibility criteria for many other states, as well as many researchers in the field (Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella, 2006); yet, how do we know that children with language disorders will have a score that low or lower on any given language test?  This is the question that Spaulding, Plante and Farinella asked in their 2006 article in Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools .   They were interested in 2 things in their study of a large number of language tests:  (1) Did children with language disorders typically score at the low end of “normal” for those on whom the test was normed? (2) Which tests provided information on specificity (i.e., percentage of typical children diagnosed as having typical language) and sensitivity (i.e., percentage of disordered children diagnosed as having a language impairment) in their test manuals. 

So, what did they find?  After looking at 43 tests, they found that only 10 reported score differences for children with language impairments greater than 1.5 standard deviation.  The average mean difference between typical and disordered children’s scores in the norming samples was 1.34 SD.  In 9 of the tests, most of the children with language impairment scored within 1 SD of the mean!   Are there students with language impairments that aren’t made eligible simply because of the test we selected to administer?

Research indicates that using sensitivity and specificity is a better way to determine the accuracy of a test for the purposes of identification of a disorder (Spaulding et al, 2006).  Specificity is how accurate the test is at identifying  typical children as typical, and sensitivity is how accurate the test is at identifying disordered children as disordered.  Specificity and sensitivity information was provided in 9 of the tests’ manuals.  Only 5 of those tests had sensitivity and specificity reported in their manuals that would be good enough to support their use in identifying language disorders:  CELF-4, PLS-4, Test of Narrative Language, Test of Early Grammatical Impairment, and Test of Language Competence – Expanded Edition.  I frequently see the CELF and PLS in use in the schools, but the others are not quite so frequently used; in fact, the TLC-E hasn’t been updated since 1989!


Twitter

Alison Pascarelli MDLinx: Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of 99mtc-ciprofloxacin in localizing skeletal tu...


Sandeep Pulim MD Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of 99mtc-ciprofloxacin in localizing skeletal tuberculosis: Journa...


Specificity And Sensitivity - Bookshelf

Clinical epidemiology, the essentials

Clinical epidemiology, the essentials

Trade-Off s Between Sensitivity and Specificity It is obviously desirable to ... Instead, there is a trade-off between the sensitivity and specificity of a ...

Clinical biochemistry, an illustrated colour text

Clinical biochemistry, an illustrated colour text

Specificity and sensitivity of tests The specificity of a test measures how commonly negative results occur in people who do not have a disease. ...

Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistical Hypothesis Testing, Receiver Operating Characteristic, Detection Dog, Law Enforcement, Positive Predictive Value, Faecal Occult Blood, Detection Theory

Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistical Hypothesis Testing, Receiver Operating Characteristic, Detection Dog, Law Enforcement, Positive Predictive Value, Faecal Occult Blood, Detection Theory


Medical biostatistics & epidemiology, examination & board review

Medical biostatistics & epidemiology, examination & board review

Specificity and sensitivity of Somogyi-Nelson blood test for diabetes at different cutoff points, two hours after eating. Adapted from Results of Boston ...

Intuitive Biostatistics, A Nonmathematical Guide to Statistical Thinking

Intuitive Biostatistics, A Nonmathematical Guide to Statistical Thinking

Learning the concepts of sensitivity and specificity presented here is a great ... DEFINITIONS OF SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY The accuracy of a diagnostic ...

Day-to-day Guide Directory


Sensitivity and specificity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sensitivity and specificity are statistical measures of the performance of a binary classification test, also known in statistics as classification function. ...

Sensitivity and Specificity - Medpedia
Sensitivity and specificity are measures of how good a medical test, sign, or symptom is. The terms are easily confused, but refer to very different things. ...

Sensitivity and specificity - encyclopedia article - Citizendium
The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests are based on ... If the sensitivity and specificity are 95% and 80%, respectively (or vice versa) then the ...

Clinical Calculator 1
test sensitivity (conditional probability that the test will be positive if the ... the case with measures of sensitivity and specificity. References: ...

Sensitivity/Specificity
Do Sensitivity and Specificity Vary in Different Populations? ... Laboratory sensitivity reports ranged from 69% to 93% and specificity ranged from 96% to ...
TOP