| Literature DB >> 35979031 |
Amy Tyberg1, Isaac Raijman2, Monica Gaidhane1, Arvind J Trindade3, Haroon Shahid1, Avik Sarkar1, Jason Samarasena4, Iman Andalib5, David L Diehl6, Douglas K Pleskow7, Kevin E Woods8, Stuart R Gordon9, Rahul Pannala10, Prashant Kedia11, Peter V Draganov12, Paul R Tarnasky11, Divyesh V Sejpal13, Nikhil A Kumta14, Gulshan Parasher15, Douglas G Adler16, Kalpesh Patel17, Dennis Yang12, Uzma Siddiqui18, Michel Kahaleh1, Viren Joshi19.
Abstract
Background and study aims Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a new technology available for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows under-the-surface visualization and preliminary studies have confirmed standardized characteristics associated with malignancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the first interobserver agreement in identifying previously agreed upon OCT criteria and diagnosing of malignant versus benign disease. Patients and methods Fourteen endoscopists were asked to review an atlas of reference clips and images of eight criteria derived from expert consensus A total of 35 de-identified video clips were then evaluated for presence of the eight criteria and for final diagnosis of malignant versus benign using the atlas as reference Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was done to evaluate interrater agreement. Results Clips of 23 malignant lesions and 12 benign lesions were scored. Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures (0.85) and layering effacement (0.89); hyper-glandular mucosa (0.76), intact layering (0.81), and onion-skin layering (0.77); fair agreement was seen with scalloping (0.58), and thickened epithelium (0.4); poor agreement was seen with hyper-reflective surface (0.36). The diagnostic ICC for both neoplastic (0.8) and non-neoplastic (0.8) was excellent interobserver agreement. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 51 %, ranging from 43 % to 60 %. Conclusions Biliary OCT is a promising new modality for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect on eight previously identified criteria. Interobserver agreement for malignancy diagnosis was substantial (0.8). Further studies are needed to validate this data. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35979031 PMCID: PMC9377829 DOI: 10.1055/a-1779-5027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1 a Dilated hypo-reflective structures. b Hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame). c Hyper-reflective surface. d Intact layering. e Layering effacement. f Onion-skin layering. g Thickened epithelium. h Scalloping.
Patient characteristics and clinical diagnoses.
| Case | Age | Gender | Presenting symptoms and cross-sectional imaging | Final diagnosis |
| 1 | 72 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 2 | 65 | Female | Jaundice, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 3 | 58 | Male | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 4 | 65 | Male | Elevated LFTs, CHD stricture | Post-surgical stricture |
| 5 | 66 | Female | Jaundice, CHD stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
| 6 | 59 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
| 7 | 72 | Male | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
| 8 | 29 | Female | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 9 | 73 | Male | Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 10 | 69 | Female | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
| 11 | 62 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 12 | 72 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 13 | 68 | Female | Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 14 | 75 | Male | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 15 | 81 | Female | Jaundice, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 16 | 67 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Benign Biliary stricture |
| 17 | 75 | Female | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 18 | 59 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 19 | 76 | Female | Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
| 20 | 75 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 21 | 66 | Female | Jaundice, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 22 | 82 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 23 | 75 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 24 | 71 | Male | Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 25 | 59 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 26 | 68 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Benign Biliary stricture |
| 27 | 56 | Male | Jaundice, CHD stricture | Benign Biliary stricture |
| 28 | 74 | Male | Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 29 | 58 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 30 | 63 | Male | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Benign Biliary stricture |
| 31 | 65 | Female | Jaundice, CHD stricture | Benign Biliary stricture |
| 32 | 58 | Male | Jaundice, Hilar stricture | Cholangiocarcinoma |
| 33 | 82 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 34 | 76 | Female | Jaundice, distal biliary stricture | Pancreatic cancer |
| 35 | 52 | Male | Jaundice, CHD stricture | Benign biliary stricture |
LFT, liver function test; CHD, common hepatic duct.
Intraclass correlation of previously determined OCT criteria to evaluate biliary strictures.
|
|
|
|
|
| Presence of dilated hypo-reflective structures | 0.85 | Excellent | 0.76 to 0.91 |
| Presence of hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame) | 0.76 | Excellent | 0.63 to 0.86 |
| Presence of hyper-reflective surface | 0.36 | Poor | 0.004to 0.63 |
| Presence of intact layering | 0.81 | Excellent | 0.70 to 0.89 |
| Presence of layering effacement | 0.89 | Excellent | 0.73 to 0.94 |
| Presence of onion-skin layering | 0.77 | Excellent | 0.65 to 0.87 |
| Presence of thickened epithelium | 0.40 | Fair | 0.06 to 0.66 |
| Presence of scalloping | 0.58 | Fair | 0.34 to 0.76 |
| Neoplastic diagnosis | 0.79 | Excellent | 0.67 to 0.88 |
| Non-neoplastic diagnosis | 0.80 | Excellent | 0.68 to 0.88 |
Criteria frequency
|
|
|
|
|
| Presence of dilated hypo-reflective structures | 18/35 (51 %) | 14/23 (61 %) | 4/12 (33 %) |
| Presence of hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame) | 11/35 (31 %) | 7/23 (30 %) | 4/12 (33 %) |
| Presence of hyper-reflective surface | 17/35 (49 %) | 11/23 (48 %) | 6/12 (50 %) |
| Presence of intact layering | 14/35 (40 %) | 7/23 (30 %) | 7/12 (58 %) |
| Presence of layering effacement | 17/35 (49 %) | 12/23 (52 %) | 5/12 (42 %) |
| Presence of onion-skin layering | 8/35 (23 %) | 7/23 (30 %) | 1/12 (8 %) |
| Presence of thickened epithelium | 20/35 (57 %) | 13/23 (56.5 %) | 7/12 (58 %) |
| Presence of scalloping | 10/35 (29 %) | 5/23 (22 %) | 5/12 (42 %) |
P value compares frequency of criteria visualized in malignant clips vs benign clips.
Interobserver diagnostic accuracy.
| Interobserver (IOV) diagnostic accuracy, yes or no | |||||||||||||||
| Clip no. | Actual diagnosis | IOV 1 | IOV 2 | IOV 3 | IOV 4 | IOV 5 | IOV 6 | IOV 7 | IOV 8 | IOV 9 | IOV 10 | IOV 11 | IOV 12 | IOV 13 | IOV 14 |
| Clip 1 | Neoplastic | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Clip 2 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 3 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 4 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| Clip 5 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Clip 6 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 7 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 8 | Neoplastic | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Clip 9 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 10 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Clip 11 | Neoplastic | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Clip 12 | Neoplastic | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 13 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Clip 14 | Neoplastic | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 15 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 16 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 17 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 18 | Neoplastic | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Clip 19 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| Clip 20 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Clip 21 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Clip 22 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Clip 23 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 24 | Neoplastic | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Clip 25 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 26 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 27 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 28 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 29 | Neoplastic | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Clip 30 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 31 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Clip 32 | Neoplastic | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Clip 33 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Clip 34 | Neoplastic | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Clip 35 | Non-neoplastic | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Total accuracy (n) | 20 | 19 | 18 | 16 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 21 | 15 | 16 | 16 | |
| Total accuracy (%) | 57 % | 54 % | 51 % | 46 % | 43 % | 51 % | 51 % | 51 % | 54 % | 54 % | 60 % | 43 % | 46 % | 46 % | |