BACKGROUND AND AIM: Various techniques using magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been developed to enhance images of early gastric cancer (EGC) demarcations, which are often obscure. We investigated four ME methods to determine which is most effective in enhancing the recognition of EGC demarcations: conventional ME (CME), ME with narrow band imaging (NBI-ME), enhanced-magnification endoscopy with acetic acid (EME), and ME with NBI and acetic acid (NBI-EME). METHODS: Thirty-seven successive patients having a total of 40 EGCs participated in the investigation. The endoscope was fixed and magnification images of EGC demarcations in each patient were recorded using four different ME methods (CME, NBI-ME, EME and NBI-EME). Eight experts and eight non-experts scored each of the four images of each lesion for ease of recognition of demarcation (1 to 4, with 4 being easiest). RESULTS: The mean scores of expert and non-expert judges, respectively, for images acquired using each technique were: CME 1.23, 1.24; NBI-ME 2.61, 2.95; EME 2.62, 2.32 and NBI-EME 3.54, 3.50. There were significant differences between the mean scores for the four techniques (P < 0.0001) using one-way repeated-measures anova. In a Bonferroni's multiple comparison, the average scores (expert and non-expert) of images acquired using NBI-EME were significantly higher than those acquired using other methods; images acquired by NBI-ME or EME also scored significantly higher than those by CME. Non-experts also scored NBI-ME images significantly higher than CME and EME images. CONCLUSIONS: Early gastric cancer demarcations were recognized most easily using NBI-EME, and more easily using EME or NBI-ME than CME.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Various techniques using magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been developed to enhance images of early gastric cancer (EGC) demarcations, which are often obscure. We investigated four ME methods to determine which is most effective in enhancing the recognition of EGC demarcations: conventional ME (CME), ME with narrow band imaging (NBI-ME), enhanced-magnification endoscopy with acetic acid (EME), and ME with NBI and acetic acid (NBI-EME). METHODS: Thirty-seven successive patients having a total of 40 EGCs participated in the investigation. The endoscope was fixed and magnification images of EGC demarcations in each patient were recorded using four different ME methods (CME, NBI-ME, EME and NBI-EME). Eight experts and eight non-experts scored each of the four images of each lesion for ease of recognition of demarcation (1 to 4, with 4 being easiest). RESULTS: The mean scores of expert and non-expert judges, respectively, for images acquired using each technique were: CME 1.23, 1.24; NBI-ME 2.61, 2.95; EME 2.62, 2.32 and NBI-EME 3.54, 3.50. There were significant differences between the mean scores for the four techniques (P < 0.0001) using one-way repeated-measures anova. In a Bonferroni's multiple comparison, the average scores (expert and non-expert) of images acquired using NBI-EME were significantly higher than those acquired using other methods; images acquired by NBI-ME or EME also scored significantly higher than those by CME. Non-experts also scored NBI-ME images significantly higher than CME and EME images. CONCLUSIONS: Early gastric cancer demarcations were recognized most easily using NBI-EME, and more easily using EME or NBI-ME than CME.
Authors: M Dinis-Ribeiro; M Areia; A C de Vries; R Marcos-Pinto; M Monteiro-Soares; A O'Connor; C Pereira; P Pimentel-Nunes; R Correia; A Ensari; J M Dumonceau; J C Machado; G Macedo; P Malfertheiner; T Matysiak-Budnik; F Megraud; K Miki; C O'Morain; R M Peek; T Ponchon; A Ristimaki; B Rembacken; F Carneiro; E J Kuipers Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: M Dinis-Ribeiro; M Areia; A C de Vries; R Marcos-Pinto; M Monteiro-Soares; A O'Connor; C Pereira; P Pimentel-Nunes; R Correia; A Ensari; J M Dumonceau; J C Machado; G Macedo; P Malfertheiner; T Matysiak-Budnik; F Megraud; K Miki; C O'Morain; R M Peek; T Ponchon; A Ristimaki; B Rembacken; F Carneiro; E J Kuipers Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Guo Tao; Lu Xing-Hua; Yang Ai-Ming; Zhou Wei-Xun; Yao Fang; Wu Xi; Wang Li-Yin; Lu Chong-Mei; Fei Gui-Jun; Shu Hui-Jun; Wu Dong-Sheng; Li Yue; Li Xiao-Qing; Qian Jia-Ming Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 7.370