BACKGROUND: Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) have emerged as a putative precursor to colorectal adenoma, with potential use as a biomarker of colorectal cancer. However, there are wide differences in ACF prevalence, dysplasia, and histologic confirmation rates across studies. These differences may, in part, be because of variability in identification of endoscopic criteria. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the accuracy and reliability of various endoscopic criteria used to identify ACF when using magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE). DESIGN: Images obtained via MCE were shown to participating endoscopists who diagnosed them as ACF or not and who assessed them for the endoscopic characteristics used to identify ACF in the literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The predictive ability of the endoscopic criteria (crypt number, staining, margin, crypt size, epithelial thickness, and lumen shape) for histologic confirmation of ACF, and their reliability across endoscopists. The accuracy of the examiners in identifying ACF that were histologically confirmed was also assessed. RESULTS: The interrater agreement rate for all except one of the endoscopic criteria (crypt number) was low and did not improve with training. None of the criteria could significantly predict histologic confirmation of ACF. Despite training exercises, accuracy of endoscopists to correctly identify a histologically proven ACF remained low. LIMITATIONS: Still images with x40 optical magnification were analyzed rather than real-time endoscopy. All ACF samples were hyperplastic; none were dysplastic. CONCLUSIONS: No endoscopic criteria evaluated by our study predicted histologic confirmation of ACF. MCE had low accuracy and poor reliability.
BACKGROUND: Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) have emerged as a putative precursor to colorectal adenoma, with potential use as a biomarker of colorectal cancer. However, there are wide differences in ACF prevalence, dysplasia, and histologic confirmation rates across studies. These differences may, in part, be because of variability in identification of endoscopic criteria. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the accuracy and reliability of various endoscopic criteria used to identify ACF when using magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE). DESIGN: Images obtained via MCE were shown to participating endoscopists who diagnosed them as ACF or not and who assessed them for the endoscopic characteristics used to identify ACF in the literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The predictive ability of the endoscopic criteria (crypt number, staining, margin, crypt size, epithelial thickness, and lumen shape) for histologic confirmation of ACF, and their reliability across endoscopists. The accuracy of the examiners in identifying ACF that were histologically confirmed was also assessed. RESULTS: The interrater agreement rate for all except one of the endoscopic criteria (crypt number) was low and did not improve with training. None of the criteria could significantly predict histologic confirmation of ACF. Despite training exercises, accuracy of endoscopists to correctly identify a histologically proven ACF remained low. LIMITATIONS: Still images with x40 optical magnification were analyzed rather than real-time endoscopy. All ACF samples were hyperplastic; none were dysplastic. CONCLUSIONS: No endoscopic criteria evaluated by our study predicted histologic confirmation of ACF. MCE had low accuracy and poor reliability.
Authors: T Yokota; K Sugano; H Kondo; D Saito; K Sugihara; N Fukayama; H Ohkura; A Ochiai; S Yoshida Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: C Di Gregorio; L Losi; R Fante; S Modica; M Ghidoni; M Pedroni; M G Tamassia; L Gafà; M Ponz de Leon; L Roncucci Journal: Histopathology Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: David P Hurlstone; Mohammed Karajeh; David S Sanders; Sister K Drew; Simon S Cross Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Rebecca E Rudolph; Jason A Dominitz; Johanna W Lampe; Lisa Levy; Pingping Qu; Shuying S Li; Paul D Lampe; Mary P Bronner; John D Potter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: T Takayama; S Katsuki; Y Takahashi; M Ohi; S Nojiri; S Sakamaki; J Kato; K Kogawa; H Miyake; Y Niitsu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-10-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T P Pretlow; B J Barrow; W S Ashton; M A O'Riordan; T G Pretlow; J A Jurcisek; T A Stellato Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1991-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Paul J Limburg; Michelle R Mahoney; Katie L Allen Ziegler; Stephen J Sontag; Robert E Schoen; Richard Benya; Michael J Lawson; David S Weinberg; Elena Stoffel; Michael Chiorean; Russell Heigh; Joel Levine; Gary Della'Zanna; Luz Rodriguez; Ellen Richmond; Christopher Gostout; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Thomas C Smyrk Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-01-05
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; James Fleshman; Matt Mutch; Christopher Rall; Aline Charabaty; David Seligson; Sarah Dry; Asad Umar; Robert E Schoen Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-06-22
Authors: David A Drew; Allen Mo; James J Grady; Richard G Stevens; Joel B Levine; Bruce M Brenner; Joseph C Anderson; Faripour Forouhar; Michael J O'Brien; Thomas J Devers; Daniel W Rosenberg Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Massimo Mascolo; Stefania Staibano; Gennaro Ilardi; Maria Siano; Maria Luisa Vecchione; Dario Esposito; Gaetano De Rosa; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2012-04-08 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Marek Kowalczyk; Piotr Siermontowski; Dariusz Mucha; Tadeusz Ambroży; Marcin Orłowski; Krzysztof Zinkiewicz; Waldemar Kurpiewski; Krzysztof Paśnik; Iwona Kowalczyk; Agnieszka Pedrycz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ramesh K Wali; Laura Bianchi; Sonia Kupfer; Mart De La Cruz; Borko Jovanovic; Christopher Weber; Michael J Goldberg; L M Rodriguez; Raymond Bergan; David Rubin; Mary Beth Tull; Ellen Richmond; Beth Parker; Seema Khan; Hemant K Roy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240