Detection of early XXXX using hydro-stomach CT: blinded vs unblinded analysis.

@entity5 @entity1 @entity356
AIM: To evaluate the difference in diagnostic performance of hydro-stomach computed tomography (CT) to detect early @entity356 (EGC) between blinded and unblinded analysis and to assess independent factors affecting visibility of @entity5 foci. METHODS: Two radiologists initially blinded and then unblinded to gastroscopic and surgical-histological findings independently reviewed hydro-stomach CT images of 110 @entity1 with single EGC. They graded the visibility of @entity5 foci for each of three @entity356 (upper, middle and lower thirds) using a 4-point scale (1: definitely absent, 2: probably absent, 3: probably present, and 4: definitely present). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting an EGC were calculated. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were analyzed. The visibility of an EGC was evaluated with regard to @entity5 size, invasion depth, @entity356 , histological type and gross morphology using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The respective sensitivities and specificities [reviewer 1: blinded, 20% (22/110) and 98% (215/220); unblinded, 27% (30/110) and 100% (219/220)/reviewer 2: blinded, 19% (21/110) and 98% (216/220); unblinded, 25% (27/110) and 98% (215/220)] were not significantly different. Although intraobserver agreements were good (weighted k = 0.677 and 0.666), interobserver agreements were fair (blinded, 0.371) or moderate (unblinded, 0.558). For both univariate and multivariate analyses, the @entity5 size and invasion depth were statistically significant factors affecting visibility. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of hydro-stomach CT to detect an EGC was not significantly different between blinded and unblinded analysis. The @entity5 size and invasion depth were independent factors for visibility.
