| Literature DB >> 26716118 |
Takashi Kanesaka1, Noriya Uedo1, Kenshi Yao2, Yasumasa Ezoe3, Hisashi Doyama4, Ichiro Oda5, Kazuhiro Kaneko6, Yoshiro Kawahara7, Chizu Yokoi8, Yasushi Sugiura9, Hideki Ishikawa10, Minoru Kato1, Yoji Takeuchi1, Manabu Muto3, Yutaka Saito5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Magnifying narrow-band imaging (NBI) is more useful than conventional endoscopy for diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC). However, evaluation of irregular microvascular patterns is subjective and is often difficult, even with expert eyes. The aim of this study was to clarify the most important microvascular patterns in magnifying NBI for diagnosis of EGC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter prospective trial among nine Japanese hospitals. A total of 1353 patients underwent screening with white-light endoscopy and 362 patients had small (≤ 10 mm) depressed lesions. They were randomly assigned to magnifying NBI or white-light endoscopy followed by magnifying NBI. During diagnosis, magnifying NBI images were recorded before biopsy. All magnifying NBI images were reviewed and evaluated for the association of four features of microvessels - that is, dilation, tortuosity, difference in caliber, and variation in shape - with cancer diagnosis.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26716118 PMCID: PMC4683127 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392608
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Method for selection of samples in this study.
Fig. 2Schema of endoscopic microvascular findings.
Fig. 3Representative cases for each endoscopic microvascular finding. Target lesions indicated with white arrows. a Case 1: dilation and tortuosity were present, but difference in caliber and variation in shape were absent. This lesion was histologically diagnosed as noncancerous. b Case 2: tortuosity was present but dilation, difference in caliber, and variation in shape were absent. This lesion was histologically diagnosed as noncancerous. c Case 3: dilation, difference in caliber and variation in shape were present, but tortuosity was absent. This lesion was histologically diagnosed as cancerous. d Case 4: tortuosity and variation in shape were present but dilation and difference in caliber were absent. This lesion was histologically diagnosed as cancerous.
Fig. 4Images of normal gastric mucosa as microvascular control. Subepithelial capillaries of normal corpus (a) and antral (b) mucosa served as microvascular controls.
Patient characteristics.
| Cancerous lesion(n = 40) | Noncancerous lesion(n = 303) | |
| Median age (range), years | 72 (55 – 85) | 68 (37 – 93) |
| Gender | | |
| Endoscope | | |
| Median size of lesions (range), mm | 7 (3 – 10) | 5 (2 – 10) |
| Location of lesions | | |
Diagnostic performance of each microvascular finding.
| Microvascular findings [95 %CI], % | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy |
| Dilation | 25[12 – 38] | 90[87 – 93] | 26[12 – 39] | 90[87 – 93] | 83[78 – 87] |
| Tortuosity | 55[40 – 70] | 24[19 – 29] | 8.7[5.2 – 12] | 80[76 – 85] | 28[19 – 37] |
| Difference in caliber | 13[2.3 – 23] | 99[98 – 100] | 71[38 – 100] | 90[86 – 93] | 89[86 – 93] |
| Variation in shape | 70[56 – 84] | 95[93 – 98] | 67[52 – 81] | 96[94 – 98] | 92[90 – 95] |
CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Association of each microvascular finding with cancer.
| Microvascular findings | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
| Odds ratio[95 %CI] |
| Odds ratio[95 %CI] |
| |
| Dilation | 3.1[1.4−7.1] | 0.008 | 1.9[0.5−5.8] | 0.312 |
| Tortuosity | 0.4[0.2−0.8] | 0.007 | 0.6[0.2−1.7] | 0.369 |
| Difference in caliber | 21.5[4.0−115.0] | < 0.001 | 4.8[0.5−63.8] | 0.200 |
| Variation in shape | 48.2[20.3−114.2] | < 0.001 | 38.0[16.1−95.7] | < 0.001 |
Inter-observer agreement for the microvascular findings.
| Microvascular findings | Inter-observer agreement (κ value) | |
| Experienced endoscopist | Less-experienced endoscopist | |
| Dilation | 0.44 | 0.29 |
| Tortuosity | 0.33 | 0.07 |
| Difference in caliber | 0.26 | 0.11 |
| Variation in shape | 0.48 | 0.25 |