Literature DB >> 22382851

Accuracy of real-time vs. blinded offline diagnosis of neoplastic colorectal polyps using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: a pilot study.

M W Shahid1, A M Buchner, M Raimondo, T A Woodward, M Krishna, M B Wallace.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) is a new imaging modality that enables histological examination of gastrointestinal mucosa during endoscopic procedures. Most studies have evaluated offline interpretation of pCLE images. In clinical practice, real-time interpretation is necessary to assist decision-making during the procedure. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the accuracy of real-time pCLE diagnosis made during the procedure with that of blinded offline interpretation to provide accuracy estimates that will aid the planning of future studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: pCLE was performed in patients undergoing screening and surveillance colonoscopy. Once a polyp had been identified, one endoscopist analyzed pCLE images during the procedure and made a provisional "real-time" diagnosis. Saved video recordings were de-identified, randomized, and reviewed "offline" 1 month later by the same endoscopist, who was blinded to the original diagnoses.
RESULTS: Images from a total of 154 polyps were recorded (80 neoplastic, 74 non-neoplastic). The overall accuracy of real-time pCLE diagnosis (accuracy 79%, sensitivity 81%, specificity 76%) and offline pCLE diagnosis (83%, 88%, and 77%, respectively) for all 154 polyps were similar. Among polyps < 10 mm in size, the accuracy of real-time interpretation was significantly lower (accuracy 78%, sensitivity 71%, specificity 83%) than that of offline pCLE interpretation (81%, 86%, 78%, respectively). For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the accuracy of pCLE diagnosis in real-time was better (accuracy 85%, sensitivity 90%, specificity 75%) than offline pCLE diagnosis (81%, 97%, and 50%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that real-time and offline interpretations of pCLE images are moderately accurate. Real-time interpretation is slightly less accurate than offline diagnosis, but overall both are comparable. Additionally, there was contrasting accuracy between the two methods for small and large polyps. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22382851     DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291589

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Use of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) in gastrointestinal applications. A consensus report based on clinical evidence.

Authors:  Kenneth K Wang; David L Carr-Locke; Satish K Singh; Helmut Neumann; Helga Bertani; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Razvan I Arsenescu; Fabrice Caillol; Kenneth J Chang; Stanislas Chaussade; Emmanuel Coron; Guido Costamagna; Aldona Dlugosz; S Ian Gan; Marc Giovannini; Frank G Gress; Oleh Haluszka; Khek Y Ho; Michel Kahaleh; Vani J Konda; Frederic Prat; Raj J Shah; Prateek Sharma; Adam Slivka; Herbert C Wolfsen; Alvin Zfass
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  Endoscopic histological assessment of colonic polyps by using elastic scattering spectroscopy.

Authors:  Eladio Rodriguez-Diaz; Qin Huang; Sandra R Cerda; Michael J O'Brien; Irving J Bigio; Satish K Singh
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Computer-assisted assessment of colonic polyp histopathology using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Authors:  Pushpak Taunk; Christopher D Atkinson; David Lichtenstein; Eladio Rodriguez-Diaz; Satish K Singh
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  SAGES TAVAC safety and efficacy analysis confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Authors:  Mazen R Al-Mansour; Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda; Brian R Davis; Abdulrahim Alawashez; Salvatore Docimo; Alia Qureshi; Shawn Tsuda
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  In vivo diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution microendoscopy in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps: a prospective study.

Authors:  Neil D Parikh; Daniel Perl; Michelle H Lee; Brijen Shah; Yuki Young; Shannon S Chang; Richa Shukla; Alexandros D Polydorides; Erin Moshier; James Godbold; Elinor Zhou; Josephine Mitcham; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Sharmila Anandasabapathy
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Alessandro Fugazza; Federica Gaiani; Maria Clotilde Carra; Francesco Brunetti; Michaël Lévy; Iradj Sobhani; Daniel Azoulay; Fausto Catena; Gian Luigi de'Angelis; Nicola de'Angelis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  Advanced Endoscopic Imaging in Colonic Neoplasia.

Authors:  Timo Rath; Nadine Morgenstern; Francesco Vitali; Raja Atreya; Markus F Neurath
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2020-01-21

Review 8.  Optical molecular imaging for diagnosing intestinal diseases.

Authors:  Sang-Yeob Kim; Seung-Jae Myung
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2013-11-19

9.  Learning curve and interobserver agreement of confocal laser endomicroscopy for detecting precancerous or early-stage esophageal squamous cancer.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Ming Li; Zhen Li; Xiu-Li Zuo; Chang-Qing Li; Yan-Yan Dong; Cheng-Jun Zhou; Yan-Qing Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Use of endoscopic distal attachment cap to enhance image stabilization in probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in colorectal lesions.

Authors:  Vivian Ussui; Can Xu; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Joy Hardee; Estela G Staggs; Muhammad W Shahid; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2015-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.