Marina Coletta1, Sarmed S Sami2, Arun Nachiappan2, Mirella Fraquelli1, Giovanni Casazza3, Krish Ragunath2. 1. Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 2. NIHR Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 3. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche L. Sacco, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance with random biopsies is time-consuming, invasive, and can lead to sampling error. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) with targeted biopsies has been proposed as an effective alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AAC for the detection of early neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] or early cancer [EC]) and specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in patients with BE. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies that compared AAC-based diagnoses (index test) with histopathology as the reference standard. The data were extracted on a per-patient, per-area, and per-procedure basis whenever available. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies met the inclusion criteria. For the diagnosis of HGD/EC, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for all included studies (9 studies, 1379 patients) were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), 25.0 (95% CI, 5.9-105.3), and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.18), respectively. Results were not significantly different when considering only studies with a per-patient analysis. For the characterization of SIM, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- for all the included studies (8 studies, 516 patients) were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81), 3.0 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7), and 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.26), respectively. No significant sources of heterogeneity were identified on subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: AAC has an overall high diagnostic accuracy for detecting HGD/EC in patients with BE. For SIM characterization, AAC sensitivity is very high but has poor specificity, suggesting that histological confirmation is necessary when AAC is positive.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance with random biopsies is time-consuming, invasive, and can lead to sampling error. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) with targeted biopsies has been proposed as an effective alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AAC for the detection of early neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] or early cancer [EC]) and specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in patients with BE. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies that compared AAC-based diagnoses (index test) with histopathology as the reference standard. The data were extracted on a per-patient, per-area, and per-procedure basis whenever available. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies met the inclusion criteria. For the diagnosis of HGD/EC, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for all included studies (9 studies, 1379 patients) were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), 25.0 (95% CI, 5.9-105.3), and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.18), respectively. Results were not significantly different when considering only studies with a per-patient analysis. For the characterization of SIM, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- for all the included studies (8 studies, 516 patients) were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81), 3.0 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7), and 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.26), respectively. No significant sources of heterogeneity were identified on subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION:AAC has an overall high diagnostic accuracy for detecting HGD/EC in patients with BE. For SIM characterization, AAC sensitivity is very high but has poor specificity, suggesting that histological confirmation is necessary when AAC is positive.
Authors: Jorge D Machicado; Samuel Han; Rena H Yadlapati; Violette C Simon; Bashar J Qumseya; Shahnaz Sultan; Vladimir M Kushnir; Sri Komanduri; Amit Rastogi; V Raman Muthusamy; Rehan Haidry; Krish Ragunath; Rajvinder Singh; Hazem T Hammad; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Lu Zhang; Binyu Sun; Xi Zhou; QiongQiong Wei; Sicheng Liang; Gang Luo; Tao Li; Muhan Lü Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 6.244