Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

Revision as of 22:14, 14 November 2017 by Medhat (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stomach cancer Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Stomach Cancer from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic study of choice

Staging

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Endoscopy and Biopsy

Chest X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

CDC on Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound in the news

Blogs on Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

Directions to Hospitals Treating Stomach cancer

Risk calculators and risk factors for Stomach cancer echocardiography or ultrasound

  •  Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most reliable diagnostic technique for evaluating the depth of invasion of primary gastric cancers, although newer CT techniques and MRI may achieve similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy. [40,47,48]
  • The sensitivity and specificity rates were 85 and 90 percent, respectively for ealry gastric cancers and 86 and 90 percent, respectively for advanced cases. 42
  • For metastatic involvement of lymph nodes, the summary sensitivity and specificity rates were 83 and 67 percent, respectively.
  • EUS cannot be considered optimal for distinguishing positive versus negative lymph node status.

References

Template:WH Template:WS