Jihye Park, Jin Su Kim, Joo Hye Song, Kwangwoo Nam, Seong-Eun Kim, Eui Sun Jeong, Jae Hyun Kim, Seong Ran Jeon
{"title":"设备辅助肠镜检查发现小肠肿瘤的不一致率和其他诊断方式的风险因素:韩国肠道疾病研究协会(KASID)多中心研究。","authors":"Jihye Park, Jin Su Kim, Joo Hye Song, Kwangwoo Nam, Seong-Eun Kim, Eui Sun Jeong, Jae Hyun Kim, Seong Ran Jeon","doi":"10.5009/gnl240030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Despite advances in imaging and endoscopic technology, diagnostic modalities for small bowel tumors are simultaneously performed. We investigated the discrepancy rate between each modality and predictive factors of discrepancy in patients with definite small bowel tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data of patients with definite small bowel tumors who underwent both device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) and computed tomography (CT) were retrieved from web-based enteroscopy registry database in Korea. Predictive risk factors associated with discrepancy were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 998 patients, 210 (21.0%) were diagnosed with small bowel tumor using DAE, in 193 patients with definite small bowel tumor, DAE and CT were performed. Of these patients, 12 (6.2%) showed discrepancy between examinations. Among 49 patients who underwent DAE and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) examination, 13 (26.5%) showed discrepancy between examinations. No significant independent risk factors were associated with concordance between DAE and CT in multivariate logistic regression analysis among the patients. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, red blood cell transfusion was negatively associated with concordance between DAE and VCE in patients with small bowel tumor (odds ratio, 0.163; 95% confidence interval, 0.026 to 1.004; p=0.050).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For small bowel tumors, the discrepancy rate between DAE and CT was 6.2%, and 26.5% between DAE and VCE. Despite developments in cross-sectional imaging (VCE and DAE modalities), discrepancies still exist. For small bowel bleeding that require significant transfusion while showing insignificant VCE findings, DAE should be considered as the next diagnostic approach, considering the possibility of missed small bowel tumor.</p>","PeriodicalId":12885,"journal":{"name":"Gut and Liver","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11249927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discordance Rate and Risk Factor of Other Diagnostic Modalities for Small Bowel Tumors Detected by Device-Assisted Enteroscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID) Multicenter Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jihye Park, Jin Su Kim, Joo Hye Song, Kwangwoo Nam, Seong-Eun Kim, Eui Sun Jeong, Jae Hyun Kim, Seong Ran Jeon\",\"doi\":\"10.5009/gnl240030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Despite advances in imaging and endoscopic technology, diagnostic modalities for small bowel tumors are simultaneously performed. We investigated the discrepancy rate between each modality and predictive factors of discrepancy in patients with definite small bowel tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data of patients with definite small bowel tumors who underwent both device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) and computed tomography (CT) were retrieved from web-based enteroscopy registry database in Korea. Predictive risk factors associated with discrepancy were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 998 patients, 210 (21.0%) were diagnosed with small bowel tumor using DAE, in 193 patients with definite small bowel tumor, DAE and CT were performed. Of these patients, 12 (6.2%) showed discrepancy between examinations. Among 49 patients who underwent DAE and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) examination, 13 (26.5%) showed discrepancy between examinations. No significant independent risk factors were associated with concordance between DAE and CT in multivariate logistic regression analysis among the patients. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, red blood cell transfusion was negatively associated with concordance between DAE and VCE in patients with small bowel tumor (odds ratio, 0.163; 95% confidence interval, 0.026 to 1.004; p=0.050).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For small bowel tumors, the discrepancy rate between DAE and CT was 6.2%, and 26.5% between DAE and VCE. Despite developments in cross-sectional imaging (VCE and DAE modalities), discrepancies still exist. For small bowel bleeding that require significant transfusion while showing insignificant VCE findings, DAE should be considered as the next diagnostic approach, considering the possibility of missed small bowel tumor.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gut and Liver\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11249927/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gut and Liver\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240030\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut and Liver","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discordance Rate and Risk Factor of Other Diagnostic Modalities for Small Bowel Tumors Detected by Device-Assisted Enteroscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID) Multicenter Study.
Background/aims: Despite advances in imaging and endoscopic technology, diagnostic modalities for small bowel tumors are simultaneously performed. We investigated the discrepancy rate between each modality and predictive factors of discrepancy in patients with definite small bowel tumors.
Methods: Data of patients with definite small bowel tumors who underwent both device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) and computed tomography (CT) were retrieved from web-based enteroscopy registry database in Korea. Predictive risk factors associated with discrepancy were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.
Results: Among 998 patients, 210 (21.0%) were diagnosed with small bowel tumor using DAE, in 193 patients with definite small bowel tumor, DAE and CT were performed. Of these patients, 12 (6.2%) showed discrepancy between examinations. Among 49 patients who underwent DAE and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) examination, 13 (26.5%) showed discrepancy between examinations. No significant independent risk factors were associated with concordance between DAE and CT in multivariate logistic regression analysis among the patients. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, red blood cell transfusion was negatively associated with concordance between DAE and VCE in patients with small bowel tumor (odds ratio, 0.163; 95% confidence interval, 0.026 to 1.004; p=0.050).
Conclusions: For small bowel tumors, the discrepancy rate between DAE and CT was 6.2%, and 26.5% between DAE and VCE. Despite developments in cross-sectional imaging (VCE and DAE modalities), discrepancies still exist. For small bowel bleeding that require significant transfusion while showing insignificant VCE findings, DAE should be considered as the next diagnostic approach, considering the possibility of missed small bowel tumor.
期刊介绍:
Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut and Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.
Gut and Liver is jointly owned and operated by 8 affiliated societies in the field of gastroenterology, namely: the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases, the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association, and the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer.