BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is difficult to accurately diagnose patients with depressed gastric mucosal cancer based on conventional white-light imaging (C-WLI) endoscopy. We compared the real-time diagnostic yield of C-WLI for small, depressed gastric mucosal cancers with that of magnifying narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial of patients with undiagnosed depressed lesions ≤10 mm in diameter identified by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that were analyzed by C-WLI (n = 176) or M-NBI (n = 177) immediately after detection; the C-WLI group received M-NBI after C-WLI. We compared the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity between C-WLI and M-NBI and assessed the diagnostic yield of M-NBI conducted in conjunction with C-WLI. RESULTS: Overall, 40 gastric cancers (20 in each group) were identified. The median diagnostic values for M-NBI and C-WLI were as follows: accuracy, 90.4% and 64.8%; sensitivity, 60.0% and 40.0%; and specificity, 94.3% and 67.9%, respectively. The accuracy and specificity of M-NBI were greater than those of C-WLI (P < .001); the difference in sensitivity was not significant (P = .34). The combination of M-NBI with C-WLI significantly enhanced performance compared with C-WLI alone; accuracy increased from (median) 64.8% to 96.6% (P < .001), sensitivity increased from 40.0% to 95.0% (P < .001), and specificity increased from 67.9% to 96.8% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: M-NBI, in conjunction with C-WLI, identifies small, depressed gastric mucosal cancers with 96.6% accuracy, 95.0% sensitivity, and 96.8% specificity. These values are better than for C-WLI or M-NBI alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is difficult to accurately diagnose patients with depressed gastric mucosal cancer based on conventional white-light imaging (C-WLI) endoscopy. We compared the real-time diagnostic yield of C-WLI for small, depressed gastric mucosal cancers with that of magnifying narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial of patients with undiagnosed depressed lesions ≤10 mm in diameter identified by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that were analyzed by C-WLI (n = 176) or M-NBI (n = 177) immediately after detection; the C-WLI group received M-NBI after C-WLI. We compared the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity between C-WLI and M-NBI and assessed the diagnostic yield of M-NBI conducted in conjunction with C-WLI. RESULTS: Overall, 40 gastric cancers (20 in each group) were identified. The median diagnostic values for M-NBI and C-WLI were as follows: accuracy, 90.4% and 64.8%; sensitivity, 60.0% and 40.0%; and specificity, 94.3% and 67.9%, respectively. The accuracy and specificity of M-NBI were greater than those of C-WLI (P < .001); the difference in sensitivity was not significant (P = .34). The combination of M-NBI with C-WLI significantly enhanced performance compared with C-WLI alone; accuracy increased from (median) 64.8% to 96.6% (P < .001), sensitivity increased from 40.0% to 95.0% (P < .001), and specificity increased from 67.9% to 96.8% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:M-NBI, in conjunction with C-WLI, identifies small, depressed gastric mucosal cancers with 96.6% accuracy, 95.0% sensitivity, and 96.8% specificity. These values are better than for C-WLI or M-NBI alone.