BACKGROUND: Autofluorescence imaging (AFI), which is a "red flag" technique during Barrett's surveillance, is associated with significant false positive results. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-observer agreement (IOA) in identifying AFI-positive lesions and to assess the overall accuracy of AFI. METHODS: Anonymized AFI and high resolution white light (HRE) images were prospectively collected. The AFI images were presented in random order, followed by corresponding AFI + HRE images. Three AFI experts and 3 AFI non-experts scored images after a training presentation. The IOA was calculated using kappa and accuracy was calculated with histology as gold standard. RESULTS: Seventy-four sets of images were prospectively collected from 63 patients (48 males, mean age 69 years). The IOA for number of AF positive lesions was fair when AFI images were presented. This improved to moderate with corresponding AFI and HRE images [experts 0.57 (0.44-0.70), non-experts 0.47 (0.35-0.62)]. The IOA for the site of AF lesion was moderate for experts and fair for non-experts using AF images, which improved to substantial for experts [κ = 0.62 (0.50-0.72)] but remained at fair for non-experts [κ = 0.28 (0.18-0.37)] with AFI + HRE. Among experts, the accuracy of identifying dysplasia was 0.76 (0.7-0.81) using AFI images and 0.85 (0.79-0.89) using AFI + HRE images. The accuracy was 0.69 (0.62-0.74) with AFI images alone and 0.75 (0.70-0.80) using AFI + HRE among non-experts. CONCLUSION: The IOA for AF positive lesions is fair to moderate using AFI images which improved with addition of HRE. The overall accuracy of identifying dysplasia was modest, and was better when AFI and HRE images were combined.
BACKGROUND: Autofluorescence imaging (AFI), which is a "red flag" technique during Barrett's surveillance, is associated with significant false positive results. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-observer agreement (IOA) in identifying AFI-positive lesions and to assess the overall accuracy of AFI. METHODS: Anonymized AFI and high resolution white light (HRE) images were prospectively collected. The AFI images were presented in random order, followed by corresponding AFI + HRE images. Three AFI experts and 3 AFI non-experts scored images after a training presentation. The IOA was calculated using kappa and accuracy was calculated with histology as gold standard. RESULTS: Seventy-four sets of images were prospectively collected from 63 patients (48 males, mean age 69 years). The IOA for number of AF positive lesions was fair when AFI images were presented. This improved to moderate with corresponding AFI and HRE images [experts 0.57 (0.44-0.70), non-experts 0.47 (0.35-0.62)]. The IOA for the site of AF lesion was moderate for experts and fair for non-experts using AF images, which improved to substantial for experts [κ = 0.62 (0.50-0.72)] but remained at fair for non-experts [κ = 0.28 (0.18-0.37)] with AFI + HRE. Among experts, the accuracy of identifying dysplasia was 0.76 (0.7-0.81) using AFI images and 0.85 (0.79-0.89) using AFI + HRE images. The accuracy was 0.69 (0.62-0.74) with AFI images alone and 0.75 (0.70-0.80) using AFI + HRE among non-experts. CONCLUSION: The IOA for AF positive lesions is fair to moderate using AFI images which improved with addition of HRE. The overall accuracy of identifying dysplasia was modest, and was better when AFI and HRE images were combined.
Authors: J Borovicka; J Fischer; J Neuweiler; P Netzer; J Gschossmann; T Ehmann; P Bauerfeind; G Dorta; U Zürcher; J Binek; C Meyenberger Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Wouter L Curvers; Frederike G van Vilsteren; Lubertus C Baak; Clarisse Böhmer; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Anton H Naber; Arnout van Oijen; Cyriel Y Ponsioen; Pieter Scholten; Ed Schenk; Erik Schoon; Cees A Seldenrijk; Gerrit A Meijer; Fiebo J ten Kate; Jacques J Bergman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Wouter L Curvers; Lorenza Alvarez Herrero; Michael B Wallace; Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song; Krish Ragunath; Herbert C Wolfsen; Ganapathy A Prasad; Kenneth K Wang; Venkataraman Subramanian; Bas L A M Weusten; Fiebo J Ten Kate; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Theodore R Levin; Laurel A Habel; Noel S Weiss; Patricia A Buffler Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: R Singh; G K Anagnostopoulos; K Yao; H Karageorgiou; P J Fortun; A Shonde; K Garsed; P V Kaye; C J Hawkey; K Ragunath Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Rajvinder Singh; Haris Karageorgiou; Victoria Owen; Klara Garsed; Paul J Fortun; Edward Fogden; Venkataraman Subramaniam; Anthony Shonde; Philip Kaye; Christopher J Hawkey; Krish Ragunath Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Wouter L Curvers; Rajvinder Singh; Michael B Wallace; Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song; Krish Ragunath; Herbert C Wolfsen; Fiebo J ten Kate; Paul Fockens; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-04-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jonas Wizenty; Teresa Schumann; Donna Theil; Martin Stockmann; Johann Pratschke; Frank Tacke; Felix Aigner; Tilo Wuensch Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Le Qiu; Ram Chuttani; Douglas K Pleskow; Vladimir Turzhitsky; Umar Khan; Yuri N Zakharov; Lei Zhang; Tyler M Berzin; Eric U Yee; Mandeep S Sawhney; Yunping Li; Edward Vitkin; Jeffrey D Goldsmith; Irving Itzkan; Lev T Perelman Journal: Light Sci Appl Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 17.782