Table 3. Comparison of MIS staging and conventional imaging in the determination of resectabilitya.
| Studies | Number of patients | Histology | MIS | Conventional imaging | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | ||||
| de Graaf et al., 2007 (26) | 416 | 375 (90%) AC; 33 (8%) SCC | -- | 88 | 100 | 67b | 66b | -- | |
| Nguyen et al., 2001 (28) | 33 | 24 (73%) AC; 9 (27%) SCC | 97 | 96 | 100 | 61c | 100c | 91c | |
| Luketich et al., 1999 (15) | 91 | NR | -- d | -- d | -- d | 84 e | 69e | 93e | |
| Romijn et al., 1998 (32) | 40 | 25 (60%) AC; 15 (40%) SCC | 95 | 70 | 100 | -- | -- | -- | |
a, Unresectable disease was due to distant metastasis, locally advanced disease, or extensive lymph node involvement; b, conventional imaging with CT and EUS; c, conventional imaging with CT only; d, distant metastatic disease was determined by MIS or clinical correlation and used to assess accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of PET. All other studies compared MIS staging and conventional imaging against the gold standard of surgical resection/exploration; e, conventional imaging by CT followed by PET. AC, adenocarcinoma; NR, not reported; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.