Literature DB >> 14648410

A randomized, prospective cross-over trial comparing methylene blue-directed biopsy and conventional random biopsy for detecting intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

K Ragunath1, N Krasner, V S Raman, M T Haqqani, W Y Cheung.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The value of methylene blue-directed biopsies (MBDB) in detecting specialized intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of MBDB with random biopsy in detecting intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, cross-over trial was undertaken to compare MBDB with random biopsy in patients with Barrett's esophagus segments 3 cm or more in length without macroscopic evidence of dysplasia or cancer. Dysplasia was graded as: indefinite for dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or carcinoma, and was reported in a blinded fashion.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were recruited, 44 of whom were male. A total of 1,269 biopsies were taken (MBDB-651, random biopsie-618). Analysis of the results by per-biopsy protocol showed that the MBDB technique diagnosed significantly more specialized intestinal metaplasia (75 %) compared to the random biopsy technique (68 %; P = 0.032). The sensitivity and specificity rates of MBDB for diagnosing specialized intestinal metaplasia were 91 % (95 % CI, 88 - 93 %) and 43 % (95 % CI, 36 - 51 %), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity rates of MBDB for diagnosing dysplasia or carcinoma were 49 % (95 % CI, 38 - 61 %) and 85 % (95 % CI, 82 - 88 %), respectively. There were no significant differences in the diagnosis of dysplasia and carcinoma - MBDB 12 %, random biopsy 10 %. The methylene blue staining pattern appeared to have an influence on the detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia/carcinoma. Dark blue staining was associated with increased detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia (P < 0.0001), and heterogeneous staining (P = 0.137) or no staining (P = 0.005) were associated with dysplasia and/or carcinoma detection. The MBDB technique prolonged the endoscopy examination by an average of 6 min.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of the MBDB technique was superior to that of the random biopsy technique for identifying specialized intestinal metaplasia, but not dysplasia or carcinoma. The intensity of methylene blue staining has an influence on the detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia or carcinoma, which may help in targeting the biopsies. Although MBDB prolongs the endoscopy procedure slightly, it is a safe and well-tolerated procedure. Further clinical studies on the MBDB technique exclusively in endoscopically normal dysplastic Barrett's esophagus are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14648410     DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-44599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  20 in total

Review 1.  Advanced endoscopic imaging in Barrett's oesophagus: a review on current practice.

Authors:  Rajvinder Singh; SweeLin Chen Yi Mei; Sandeep Sethi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Barrett's esophagus--Who, how, how often and what to do with dysplasia?

Authors:  Lawrence C Hookey
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  Optical coherence tomography to identify intramucosal carcinoma and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  John A Evans; John M Poneros; Brett E Bouma; Jason Bressner; Elkan F Halpern; Milen Shishkov; Gregory Y Lauwers; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Norman S Nishioka; Guillermo J Tearney
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 4.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Bo Ning; Mohamed M Abdelfatah; Mohamed O Othman
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-03

Review 5.  Optimizing the diagnosis and therapy of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Juan A Muñoz-Largacha; Hiran C Fernando; Virginia R Litle
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 6.  Emerging optical methods for surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  Matthew B Sturm; Thomas D Wang
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Barrett's Esophagus: Diagnosis, Screening, Surveillance, and Controversies.

Authors:  Rajvinder Singh; Krish Ragunath; Janusz Jankowski
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 4.519

Review 8.  Operable gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma: Where to next?

Authors:  Elizabeth C Smyth; David Cunningham
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-06-15

9.  Barrett's esophagus: where do we stand?

Authors:  Majid A Al Madi
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.485

10.  Confocal endomicroscopy (CEM) improves efficiency of Barrett surveillance.

Authors:  Vien X Nguyen; Cuong C Nguyen; Giovanni De Petris; Virender K Sharma; Ananya Das
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.