Marek Kollar1,2, Jana Krajciova3,2, Lucia Prefertusova1, Eva Sticova1, Jana Maluskova1, Zuzana Vackova3,2, Jan Martinek3,2. 1. Department of Pathology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM), Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Institute of Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Hepatogastroenterology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides real-time microscopic visualisation. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of pCLE with standard biopsies in patients with visible oesophageal or gastric lesions. METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective, pathologist-blinded study. Patients underwent high-resolution endoscopy, and lesions were examined by pCLE followed by standard biopsies. A definitive diagnosis was determined from resection specimen. Main outcomes were overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: We examined 74 lesions in 67 patients. Definitive diagnoses revealed 34 malignant and 40 non-malignant lesions. pCLE diagnosis was correct in 89.2% (66/74), while diagnosis based on biopsy was correct in 85% (57/67; p = 0.6). The overall diagnostic accuracy of biopsies was 85% (76-94%) and that of pCLE was 89% (79-96%). pCLE correctly diagnosed malignant lesions, comprising oesophageal adenocarcinoma, oesophageal squamous-cell cancer or gastric adenocarcinoma, in 88.2% (30/34) of cases, while biopsy was correctly diagnosed in 75.9% (22/29; p = 0.3). Sensitivity and specificity to diagnose a malignant lesion were 75.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56-89%) and 100% (95% CI 90-100%) for biopsies and 88.2% (95% CI 72-97%) and 92% (95% CI 79-98%) for pCLE. No differences between biopsies and pCLE were found with regard to sensitivity, specificity to diagnose dysplastic and benign lesions (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: pCLE provides satisfactory diagnostic accuracy comparable with standard biopsies in patients with oesophageal or gastric lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0292049).
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides real-time microscopic visualisation. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of pCLE with standard biopsies in patients with visible oesophageal or gastric lesions. METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective, pathologist-blinded study. Patients underwent high-resolution endoscopy, and lesions were examined by pCLE followed by standard biopsies. A definitive diagnosis was determined from resection specimen. Main outcomes were overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: We examined 74 lesions in 67 patients. Definitive diagnoses revealed 34 malignant and 40 non-malignant lesions. pCLE diagnosis was correct in 89.2% (66/74), while diagnosis based on biopsy was correct in 85% (57/67; p = 0.6). The overall diagnostic accuracy of biopsies was 85% (76-94%) and that of pCLE was 89% (79-96%). pCLE correctly diagnosed malignant lesions, comprising oesophageal adenocarcinoma, oesophageal squamous-cell cancer or gastric adenocarcinoma, in 88.2% (30/34) of cases, while biopsy was correctly diagnosed in 75.9% (22/29; p = 0.3). Sensitivity and specificity to diagnose a malignant lesion were 75.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56-89%) and 100% (95% CI 90-100%) for biopsies and 88.2% (95% CI 72-97%) and 92% (95% CI 79-98%) for pCLE. No differences between biopsies and pCLE were found with regard to sensitivity, specificity to diagnose dysplastic and benign lesions (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: pCLE provides satisfactory diagnostic accuracy comparable with standard biopsies in patients with oesophageal or gastric lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0292049).
Entities:
Keywords:
Confocal laser endomicroscopy; oesophageal and gastric cancer
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: E Werbrouck; G De Hertogh; X Sagaert; G Coremans; H Willekens; I Demedts; R Bisschops Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 4.623
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: Dan Ionuţ Gheonea; Tatiana Cârţână; Tudorel Ciurea; Carmen Popescu; Anca Bădărău; Adrian Săftoiu Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Oliver Pech; Thomas Rabenstein; Hendrik Manner; Maria C Petrone; Jürgen Pohl; Michael Vieth; Manfred Stolte; Christian Ell Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Massimiliano di Pietro; Krish Ragunath; Yeng Ang; Jin-Yong Kang; Peter Watson; Nigel Trudgill; Praful Patel; Philip V Kaye; Scott Sanders; Maria O'Donovan; Elizabeth Bird-Lieberman; Pradeep Bhandari; Janusz A Jankowski; Stephen Attwood; Simon L Parsons; Duncan Loft; Jesper Lagergren; Paul Moayyedi; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John de Caestecker Journal: Gut Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 23.059
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