OBJECTIVE: We prospectively compared the diagnostic performance of autofluorescence imaging (AFI), magnifying narrow band imaging (mNBI), and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) with white light endoscopy (WLE) for the diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), using histology as the "gold standard." DESIGN:Chinese >50 years old with history of GIM were prospectively recruited. All subjects underwent WLE, followed by AFI and NBI, and finally pCLE. Patients were randomized to undergo either AFI before NBI or vice versa. In each patient, a minimum of six sites (antrum lesser and greater curve, body lesser and greater curve, incisura, cardia, and any lesion) were each examined by WLE, AFI, NBI, and pCLE. The diagnoses were made real-time. Biopsies for histology were taken from all examined sites. pCLE videos also were reviewed off-site. Analysis was performed per-site. RESULTS:A total of 125 sites in 20 patients were examined. For diagnosing GIM, real-time pCLE had better sensitivity (90.9 vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001) and accuracy (88.0 vs. 64.8%, p < 0.001) compared with WLE. Sensitivity (90.9 vs. 68.2%, p = 0.001), specificity (84.7 vs. 69.5%, p = 0.042), and accuracy (88 vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001) of real-time pCLE were better than AFI. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of real-time pCLE and mNBI for diagnosing GIM were similar. Off-site pCLE had significantly better accuracy for diagnosing GIM compared to WLE, AFI, and mNBI. Off-site pCLE had superior specificity (94.9 vs. 84.7%, p = 0.031) and accuracy (95.2 vs. 88.0%, p = 0.012) compared with real-time pCLE. CONCLUSIONS:pCLE was superior to AFI and WLE for diagnosing GIM. Off-site review improved performance of pCLE.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We prospectively compared the diagnostic performance of autofluorescence imaging (AFI), magnifying narrow band imaging (mNBI), and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) with white light endoscopy (WLE) for the diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), using histology as the "gold standard." DESIGN: Chinese >50 years old with history of GIM were prospectively recruited. All subjects underwent WLE, followed by AFI and NBI, and finally pCLE. Patients were randomized to undergo either AFI before NBI or vice versa. In each patient, a minimum of six sites (antrum lesser and greater curve, body lesser and greater curve, incisura, cardia, and any lesion) were each examined by WLE, AFI, NBI, and pCLE. The diagnoses were made real-time. Biopsies for histology were taken from all examined sites. pCLE videos also were reviewed off-site. Analysis was performed per-site. RESULTS: A total of 125 sites in 20 patients were examined. For diagnosing GIM, real-time pCLE had better sensitivity (90.9 vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001) and accuracy (88.0 vs. 64.8%, p < 0.001) compared with WLE. Sensitivity (90.9 vs. 68.2%, p = 0.001), specificity (84.7 vs. 69.5%, p = 0.042), and accuracy (88 vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001) of real-time pCLE were better than AFI. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of real-time pCLE and mNBI for diagnosing GIM were similar. Off-site pCLE had significantly better accuracy for diagnosing GIM compared to WLE, AFI, and mNBI. Off-site pCLE had superior specificity (94.9 vs. 84.7%, p = 0.031) and accuracy (95.2 vs. 88.0%, p = 0.012) compared with real-time pCLE. CONCLUSIONS: pCLE was superior to AFI and WLE for diagnosing GIM. Off-site review improved performance of pCLE.
Authors: M Bajbouj; M Vieth; T Rösch; S Miehlke; V Becker; M Anders; H Pohl; A Madisch; T Schuster; R M Schmid; A Meining Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Liebwin Gossner; Martin Goetz; Alexandra Dahlmann; Michael Vieth; Manfred Stolte; Arthur Hoffman; Michael Jung; Bernhard Nafe; Peter R Galle; Markus F Neurath Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Lee Guan Lim; Khay Guan Yeoh; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Christopher J L Khor; Ming Teh; Yiong Huak Chan; Jimmy B Y So; Andrea Rajnakova; Emily Shen; Supriya Srivastava; Khek Yu Ho Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael B Wallace; Prateek Sharma; Charles Lightdale; Herbert Wolfsen; Emmanuel Coron; Anna Buchner; Monther Bajbouj; Ajay Bansal; Amit Rastogi; Julian Abrams; Julia E Crook; Alexander Meining Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: N Uedo; R Ishihara; H Iishi; S Yamamoto; S Yamamoto; T Yamada; K Imanaka; Y Takeuchi; K Higashino; S Ishiguro; M Tatsuta Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 10.093
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
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