Background and Aims: Enteroscopy (wireless or wired) is the reference standard for small-bowel (SB) diseases, and it has been applied to detect SB malignancies in complicated celiac disease (CD) with heterogeneous results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to obtain a diagnostic yield (DY) by pooling the data of studies that investigated the use of enteroscopy to detect SB adverse events in CD. Methods: We performed an online search for studies estimating the DY of wireless and wired enteroscopy in predicting the presence of SB premalignant and/or malignant lesions. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method was used to pool the arcsine-transformed proportions of patients with the events. Three meta-analyses were performed considering the following events: the presence of a malignancy, premalignant damage (ulcerative jejunoileitis [UJ]), or the presence of a malignancy or UJ. A subgroup analysis was performed after extracting (if possible) patients with refractory CD (RCD). Results: Of the 529 titles initially resulting from the search, 10 studies on capsule enteroscopy (CE) and 3 on double-balloon or push enteroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 439 and 76 patients were enrolled in these studies using CE and enteroscopy, respectively. Twelve tumors and 47 UJs were found by CE versus 8 tumors and 13 UJs detected by wired enteroscopy. For malignancies the CE yield was 1.9% (95% CI, .5%-3.8%) and wired enteroscopy yield 8.7% (95% CI, 0%-21.2%); similarly, for UJ the DYs were 8.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-17.7%) and 16.7% (95% CI, 8.7%-26.3%); for either UJ or neoplasia the DYs were 13.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.5%) and 27.7% (95% CI, 14.8%-42.6%). For RCD the DYs of all enteroscopic techniques were 1.8% (95% CI, 0%-7.7%) for neoplasia, 22.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-39.7%) for UJ, and 27.5% (95% CI, 13.1%-44.2%) for either. Conclusions: Enteroscopy is a powerful and efficient diagnostic tool for the detection of SB malignancies in complicated CD.

Use of enteroscopy for the detection of malignant and premalignant lesions of the small bowel in complicated celiac disease: a meta-analysis / L. Elli, G. Casazza, M. Locatelli, F. Branchi, F. Ferretti, D. Conte, M. Fraquelli. - In: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0016-5107. - 86:2(2017), pp. 264-273. [10.1016/j.gie.2017.04.006]

Use of enteroscopy for the detection of malignant and premalignant lesions of the small bowel in complicated celiac disease: a meta-analysis

L. Elli
;
G. Casazza
Secondo
;
M. Locatelli;F. Branchi;F. Ferretti;D. Conte
Penultimo
;
2017

Abstract

Background and Aims: Enteroscopy (wireless or wired) is the reference standard for small-bowel (SB) diseases, and it has been applied to detect SB malignancies in complicated celiac disease (CD) with heterogeneous results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to obtain a diagnostic yield (DY) by pooling the data of studies that investigated the use of enteroscopy to detect SB adverse events in CD. Methods: We performed an online search for studies estimating the DY of wireless and wired enteroscopy in predicting the presence of SB premalignant and/or malignant lesions. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method was used to pool the arcsine-transformed proportions of patients with the events. Three meta-analyses were performed considering the following events: the presence of a malignancy, premalignant damage (ulcerative jejunoileitis [UJ]), or the presence of a malignancy or UJ. A subgroup analysis was performed after extracting (if possible) patients with refractory CD (RCD). Results: Of the 529 titles initially resulting from the search, 10 studies on capsule enteroscopy (CE) and 3 on double-balloon or push enteroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 439 and 76 patients were enrolled in these studies using CE and enteroscopy, respectively. Twelve tumors and 47 UJs were found by CE versus 8 tumors and 13 UJs detected by wired enteroscopy. For malignancies the CE yield was 1.9% (95% CI, .5%-3.8%) and wired enteroscopy yield 8.7% (95% CI, 0%-21.2%); similarly, for UJ the DYs were 8.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-17.7%) and 16.7% (95% CI, 8.7%-26.3%); for either UJ or neoplasia the DYs were 13.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.5%) and 27.7% (95% CI, 14.8%-42.6%). For RCD the DYs of all enteroscopic techniques were 1.8% (95% CI, 0%-7.7%) for neoplasia, 22.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-39.7%) for UJ, and 27.5% (95% CI, 13.1%-44.2%) for either. Conclusions: Enteroscopy is a powerful and efficient diagnostic tool for the detection of SB malignancies in complicated CD.
English
Double-balloon enteroscopy; video capsule endoscopy; refractory sprue; risk; population; prevalence; guidelines; management; diagnosis; lymphoma
Settore MED/12 - Gastroenterologia
Settore MED/01 - Statistica Medica
Review essay
Esperti anonimi
Pubblicazione scientifica
2017
Mosby Inc.
86
2
264
273
10
Pubblicato
Periodico con rilevanza internazionale
scopus
pubmed
crossref
Aderisco
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Use of enteroscopy for the detection of malignant and premalignant lesions of the small bowel in complicated celiac disease: a meta-analysis / L. Elli, G. Casazza, M. Locatelli, F. Branchi, F. Ferretti, D. Conte, M. Fraquelli. - In: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0016-5107. - 86:2(2017), pp. 264-273. [10.1016/j.gie.2017.04.006]
reserved
Prodotti della ricerca::01 - Articolo su periodico
7
262
Article (author)
no
L. Elli, G. Casazza, M. Locatelli, F. Branchi, F. Ferretti, D. Conte, M. Fraquelli
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2017 GastrointestEndosc Use of enteroscopy for the detection of malignant and premalignant lesions of the small bowel in complicated celiac disease a meta-analysis.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 939.93 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
939.93 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/518598
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 41
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
social impact