BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) is currently performed by histologic assessment of multiple endoscopic biopsies, methylene blue chromoendoscopy, or narrow-band imaging with magnification. However, practical and readily available methods are lacking. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) for determining the extent of gastric IM. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six participants were enrolled. The participants underwent screening EGD with 1.5% acetic acid instillation for the detection of acetowhite reaction. Subsequently, targeted biopsies were performed at the 5 standard intra-gastric locations of the updated Sydney system. The accuracy of AAC was calculated using the histology results as a reference. Two endoscopists, each of whom was blinded to the other's result, determined the presence or absence of acetowhite reaction. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic accuracy of AAC was 89.0%, and the sensitivity and specificity were 77.6% and 94.4%, respectively. The specificity for the gastric body was >94%. The proportion of extensive IM, a strong risk factor for gastric cancer, increased from 0.9% to 18.1% when AAC was used instead of conventional EGD alone (P < .001). Endoscopically determined atrophy had a negative effect on the diagnosis of AAC (odds ratio, 3.012; 95% confidence interval, 1.625-5.583). There was substantial inter- and intra-observer agreement. CONCLUSIONS: AAC is a valid and reproducible tool for determining the extent of gastric IM and may serve as a practical method of identifying populations at high risk of gastric cancer. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01499576.).
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) is currently performed by histologic assessment of multiple endoscopic biopsies, methylene blue chromoendoscopy, or narrow-band imaging with magnification. However, practical and readily available methods are lacking. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) for determining the extent of gastric IM. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six participants were enrolled. The participants underwent screening EGD with 1.5% acetic acid instillation for the detection of acetowhite reaction. Subsequently, targeted biopsies were performed at the 5 standard intra-gastric locations of the updated Sydney system. The accuracy of AAC was calculated using the histology results as a reference. Two endoscopists, each of whom was blinded to the other's result, determined the presence or absence of acetowhite reaction. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic accuracy of AAC was 89.0%, and the sensitivity and specificity were 77.6% and 94.4%, respectively. The specificity for the gastric body was >94%. The proportion of extensive IM, a strong risk factor for gastric cancer, increased from 0.9% to 18.1% when AAC was used instead of conventional EGD alone (P < .001). Endoscopically determined atrophy had a negative effect on the diagnosis of AAC (odds ratio, 3.012; 95% confidence interval, 1.625-5.583). There was substantial inter- and intra-observer agreement. CONCLUSIONS:AAC is a valid and reproducible tool for determining the extent of gastric IM and may serve as a practical method of identifying populations at high risk of gastric cancer. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01499576.).