BACKGROUND & AIMS: US guidelines recommend surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) to detect dysplasia. BE conventionally is monitored via white-light endoscopy (WLE) and a collection of random biopsy specimens. However, this approach does not definitively or consistently detect areas of dysplasia. Advanced imaging technologies can increase the detection of dysplasia and cancer. We investigated whether these imaging technologies can increase the diagnostic yield for the detection of neoplasia in patients with BE, compared with WLE and analysis of random biopsy specimens. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, using Medline and Embase, to identify relevant peer-review studies. Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, with a total of 843 patients. Our metameter (estimate) of interest was the paired-risk difference (RD), defined as the difference in yield of the detection of dysplasia or cancer using advanced imaging vs WLE. The estimated paired-RD and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed by means of the Q statistic and the I(2) statistic. An exploratory meta-regression was performed to look for associations between the metameter and potential confounders or modifiers. RESULTS: Overall, advanced imaging techniques increased the diagnostic yield for detection of dysplasia or cancer by 34% (95% CI, 20%-56%; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis showed that virtual chromoendoscopy significantly increased the diagnostic yield (RD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.56; P < .0001). The RD for chromoendoscopy was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.13-0.56; P = .0001). There was no significant difference between virtual chromoendoscopy and chromoendoscopy, based on Student t test analysis (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a meta-analysis, advanced imaging techniques such as chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy significantly increase the diagnostic yield for identification of dysplasia or cancer in patients with BE.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: US guidelines recommend surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) to detect dysplasia. BE conventionally is monitored via white-light endoscopy (WLE) and a collection of random biopsy specimens. However, this approach does not definitively or consistently detect areas of dysplasia. Advanced imaging technologies can increase the detection of dysplasia and cancer. We investigated whether these imaging technologies can increase the diagnostic yield for the detection of neoplasia in patients with BE, compared with WLE and analysis of random biopsy specimens. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, using Medline and Embase, to identify relevant peer-review studies. Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, with a total of 843 patients. Our metameter (estimate) of interest was the paired-risk difference (RD), defined as the difference in yield of the detection of dysplasia or cancer using advanced imaging vs WLE. The estimated paired-RD and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed by means of the Q statistic and the I(2) statistic. An exploratory meta-regression was performed to look for associations between the metameter and potential confounders or modifiers. RESULTS: Overall, advanced imaging techniques increased the diagnostic yield for detection of dysplasia or cancer by 34% (95% CI, 20%-56%; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis showed that virtual chromoendoscopy significantly increased the diagnostic yield (RD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.56; P < .0001). The RD for chromoendoscopy was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.13-0.56; P = .0001). There was no significant difference between virtual chromoendoscopy and chromoendoscopy, based on Student t test analysis (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a meta-analysis, advanced imaging techniques such as chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy significantly increase the diagnostic yield for identification of dysplasia or cancer in patients with BE.
Authors: J M Wo; M B Ray; S Mayfield-Stokes; G Al-Sabbagh; F Gebrail; S P Slone; M A Wilson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Klaudia Niepsuj; Grzegorz Niepsuj; Wojciech Cebula; Witold Zieleźnik; Mariusz Adamek; Andrzej Sielańczyk; Jakub Adamczyk; Józef Kurek; Aleksander Sieroń Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Farah Deeba; Shahed K Mohammed; Francis Minhthang Bui; Khan A Wahid Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 3.316