AIM: To compare the interpretation of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) findings between endoscopists and gastrointestinal (GI)-pathologists. METHODS: All pCLE procedures were undertaken and the endoscopist rendered assessment. The same pCLE videos were then viewed offline by an expert GI pathologist. Histopathology was considered the gold standard for definitive diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosis of dysplastic/ neoplastic GI lesions and interobserver agreement between endoscopists and experienced gastrointestinal pathologist for pCLE findings were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 66 included patients, 40 (60.6%) had lesions in the esophagus, 7 (10.6%) in the stomach, 15 (22.7%) in the biliary tract, 3 (4.5%) in the ampulla and 1 (1.5%) in the colon. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing dysplastic/neoplastic lesions using pCLE were higher for endoscopists than pathologist at 87.0% vs 69.6%, 80.0% vs 40.0% and 84.8% vs 60.6% (P = 0.0003), respectively. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was greater for endoscopists than the pathologist (0.83 vs 0.55, P = 0.0001). Overall agreement between endoscopists and pathologist was moderate for all GI lesions (K = 0.43; 95%CI: 0.26-0.61), luminal lesions (K = 0.40; 95%CI: 0.20-0.60) and those of dysplastic/neoplastic pathology (K = 0.55; 95%CI: 0.37-0.72), the agreement was poor for benign (K = 0.13; 95%CI: -0.097-0.36) and pancreaticobiliary lesions (K = 0.19; 95%CI: -0.26-0.63). CONCLUSION: There is a wide discrepancy in the interpretation of pCLE findings between endoscopists and pathologist, particularly for benign and malignant pancreaticobiliary lesions. Further studies are needed to identify the cause of this poor agreement.
AIM: To compare the interpretation of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) findings between endoscopists and gastrointestinal (GI)-pathologists. METHODS: All pCLE procedures were undertaken and the endoscopist rendered assessment. The same pCLE videos were then viewed offline by an expert GI pathologist. Histopathology was considered the gold standard for definitive diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosis of dysplastic/ neoplastic GI lesions and interobserver agreement between endoscopists and experienced gastrointestinal pathologist for pCLE findings were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 66 included patients, 40 (60.6%) had lesions in the esophagus, 7 (10.6%) in the stomach, 15 (22.7%) in the biliary tract, 3 (4.5%) in the ampulla and 1 (1.5%) in the colon. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing dysplastic/neoplastic lesions using pCLE were higher for endoscopists than pathologist at 87.0% vs 69.6%, 80.0% vs 40.0% and 84.8% vs 60.6% (P = 0.0003), respectively. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was greater for endoscopists than the pathologist (0.83 vs 0.55, P = 0.0001). Overall agreement between endoscopists and pathologist was moderate for all GI lesions (K = 0.43; 95%CI: 0.26-0.61), luminal lesions (K = 0.40; 95%CI: 0.20-0.60) and those of dysplastic/neoplastic pathology (K = 0.55; 95%CI: 0.37-0.72), the agreement was poor for benign (K = 0.13; 95%CI: -0.097-0.36) and pancreaticobiliary lesions (K = 0.19; 95%CI: -0.26-0.63). CONCLUSION: There is a wide discrepancy in the interpretation of pCLE findings between endoscopists and pathologist, particularly for benign and malignant pancreaticobiliary lesions. Further studies are needed to identify the cause of this poor agreement.
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: Prateek Sharma; Alexander R Meining; Emmanuel Coron; Charles J Lightdale; Herbert C Wolfsen; Ajay Bansal; Monther Bajbouj; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Julian A Abrams; Amit Rastogi; Neil Gupta; Joel E Michalek; Gregory Y Lauwers; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-07-13 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: M B Wallace; A Meining; M I Canto; P Fockens; S Miehlke; T Roesch; C J Lightdale; H Pohl; D Carr-Locke; M Löhr; E Coron; B Filoche; M Giovannini; J Moreau; C Schmidt; R Kiesslich Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Juergen Burg; Michael Vieth; Janina Gnaendiger; Meike Enders; Peter Delaney; Adrian Polglase; Wendy McLaren; Daniela Janell; Steven Thomas; Bernhard Nafe; Peter R Galle; Markus F Neurath Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Do Han Kim; Somashekar G Krishna; Emmanuel Coronel; Paul T Kröner; Herbert C Wolfsen; Michael B Wallace; Juan E Corral Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2021-11-29
Authors: Jitka Vaculová; Radek Kroupa; Zdeněk Kala; Jiří Dolina; Tomáš Grolich; Jakub Vlažný; David Said; Lydie Izakovičová Hollá; Petra Bořilová Linhartová; Vladimír Procházka; Marek Joukal; Petr Jabandžiev; Ondřej Slabý; Lumír Kunovský Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-02
Authors: Sabine Zirlik; Kai Hildner; Ralf Joachim Rieker; Michael Vieth; Markus Friedrich Neurath; Florian Siegfried Fuchs Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2018-08-05