BACKGROUND & AIMS: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an optical technique that produces high-resolution images of the esophagus during endoscopy. OCT can distinguish specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) from squamous mucosa, but image criteria for differentiating intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from low-grade dysplasia (LGD), indeterminate-grade dysplasia (IGD), and SIM without dysplasia have not been validated. The purpose of this study was to establish OCT image characteristics of IMC and HGD in Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: Biopsy-correlated OCT images were acquired from patients with Barrett's esophagus undergoing endoscopic surveillance. Two pathologists rendered consensus diagnoses of the biopsy specimens. A blinded investigator reviewed the biopsy-correlated OCT images and scored each for surface maturation and gland architecture. For each image the scores were summed to determine an OCT "dysplasia index." RESULTS: A total of 177 biopsy-correlated images were analyzed. The corresponding histopathology diagnosis was IMC/HGD in 49 cases, LGD in 15, IGD in 8, SIM in 100, and gastric mucosa in 5. A significant relationship was found between a histopathologic diagnosis of IMC/HGD and scores for each image feature (dysplasia index [Spearman correlation coefficient, r = 0.50, P < .0001], surface maturation [r = 0.48, P < .0001], and gland architecture [r = 0.41, P < .0001]). When a dysplasia index threshold of >or=2 was used, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing IMC/HGD were 83% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An OCT image scoring system based on histopathologic characteristics has the potential to identify IMC and HGD in Barrett's esophagus.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an optical technique that produces high-resolution images of the esophagus during endoscopy. OCT can distinguish specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) from squamous mucosa, but image criteria for differentiating intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from low-grade dysplasia (LGD), indeterminate-grade dysplasia (IGD), and SIM without dysplasia have not been validated. The purpose of this study was to establish OCT image characteristics of IMC and HGD in Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: Biopsy-correlated OCT images were acquired from patients with Barrett's esophagus undergoing endoscopic surveillance. Two pathologists rendered consensus diagnoses of the biopsy specimens. A blinded investigator reviewed the biopsy-correlated OCT images and scored each for surface maturation and gland architecture. For each image the scores were summed to determine an OCT "dysplasia index." RESULTS: A total of 177 biopsy-correlated images were analyzed. The corresponding histopathology diagnosis was IMC/HGD in 49 cases, LGD in 15, IGD in 8, SIM in 100, and gastric mucosa in 5. A significant relationship was found between a histopathologic diagnosis of IMC/HGD and scores for each image feature (dysplasia index [Spearman correlation coefficient, r = 0.50, P < .0001], surface maturation [r = 0.48, P < .0001], and gland architecture [r = 0.41, P < .0001]). When a dysplasia index threshold of >or=2 was used, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing IMC/HGD were 83% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An OCT image scoring system based on histopathologic characteristics has the potential to identify IMC and HGD in Barrett's esophagus.
Authors: John M Poneros; Guillermo J Tearney; Milen Shiskov; Peter B Kelsey; Gregory Y Lauwers; Norman S Nishioka; Brett E Bouma Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: P R Herz; Y Chen; A D Aguirre; K Schneider; P Hsiung; J G Fujimoto; K Madden; J Schmitt; J Goodnow; C Petersen Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: M V Sivak; K Kobayashi; J A Izatt; A M Rollins; R Ung-Runyawee; A Chak; R C Wong; G A Isenberg; J Willis Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M B Wallace; L T Perelman; V Backman; J M Crawford; M Fitzmaurice; M Seiler; K Badizadegan; S J Shields; I Itzkan; R R Dasari; J Van Dam; M S Feld Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: E Montgomery; M P Bronner; J R Goldblum; J K Greenson; M M Haber; J Hart; L W Lamps; G Y Lauwers; A J Lazenby; D N Lewin; M E Robert; A Y Toledano; Y Shyr; K Washington Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Eugen Osiac; Adrian Săftoiu; Dan Ionut Gheonea; Ion Mandrila; Radu Angelescu Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Fredrick A South; Yuan-Zhi Liu; Yang Xu; Nathan D Shemonski; P Scott Carney; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Appl Phys Lett Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Seok H Yun; Guillermo J Tearney; Benjamin J Vakoc; Milen Shishkov; Wang Y Oh; Adrien E Desjardins; Melissa J Suter; Raymond C Chan; John A Evans; Ik-Kyung Jang; Norman S Nishioka; Johannes F de Boer; Brett E Bouma Journal: Nat Med Date: 2006-11-19 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Jordan A Sweer; Mason T Chen; Kevan J Salimian; Richard J Battafarano; Nicholas J Durr Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 3.207